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.

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

3997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2013-06-27 10:47:36 AM  

FTA: 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."

I deserve to be the quivering meat in a Salma Hayek/Sofia Vergara sammich.  In short:

i78.photobucket.com

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

 
2013-06-27 10:47:40 AM  
FTFA: 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.

Whoa, hold up.  There's a monthly bagger meeting where they get together with reporters to answer questions about their crazy asshattery?  Why the fark is there not a live feed on here to each and every one of these when it happens?  It's got to be like watching a monkey dressed up like a cowboy that suffered a head injury try to fark a cactus.  At first, you'd find it hilarious but after a bit it's going to be sad and your just going to want that monkey to stop before he hurts himself more.  But with each prick to the dick you know that little bastard is going jump right back on that thing and start grinding some more with the same results.
 
2013-06-27 10:47:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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 image 650x458]


Is that Christa Mcauliffe in a spacesuit to the left of Ben Franklin?
 
2013-06-27 10:48:22 AM  
...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:27 AM  

coeyagi: 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.


I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: 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.


The thing is, Republicans have been winning the abortion battle on the state level as of late, by adding more and more restrictions until it become effectively impossible to get one. I'm kind of wondering if there might be analogous games they could play with marriage at the state level. To my mind it seems much more unlikely since marriage is not a medical procedure, but I do think we're going to see the fight over gay marriage move into a more abstract realm, the way "dog-whistle politics" did for racial issues.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 AM  
"Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.
 
2013-06-27 10:49:32 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."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.


Also, will he sponsor a bill that would take children away from single parents? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
2013-06-27 10:50:06 AM  
"A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives," said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

So it's like when Roberts put his plan to destroy the Voting Rights Act in place.
 
2013-06-27 10:50:30 AM  

EyeballKid: "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


Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources. The article is also light on details, refuses to name the people who overheard Bush say that, and was authored by someone who has retracted multiple stories of his own because he relied on fake sources.  http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-pi e ce-of-paper/
 
2013-06-27 10:50:40 AM  

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


Odds on at least one Republican Senate candidate losing their election in 2014 because they supported a federal marriage amendment? I'd say they've got to be close to even now.
 
2013-06-27 10:51:09 AM  
Grrrr! I'm so angry! Dag nabbit, I could just... CHANGE the Constitution!

That'll show 'em.

*kicks rock*
 
2013-06-27 10:53:19 AM  

Derigiberble: 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 agree completely, but my question was rhetorical.  "The children" is the de rigeur defense, and one of the few that has any tread on it left.

Philip Francis Queeg: Jesus could re-write his original.


The interactive-caption version of this print is richer than Belgian chocolate.  The one with the artist's intentions, not the satirical rips that have been done of it.

Those I also like.

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.


Modern Republicans can be overheard loudly and proudly claiming Lincoln and MLK, Jr. as like-minded fellows, so they have no idea that the social conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.  Allowing oneself to just pretend that Nixon's "Southern Strategy" never occurred and that Strom Thurmond never switched parties to bring bigotry into the banner of the GOP makes this delusion much easier to keep up.
 
2013-06-27 10:54:38 AM  
"A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives," said Gov. Orval Faubus
 
2013-06-27 10:54:50 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.


I think it isn't entirely grim cynicism making me instinctively distrust organizations with the words 'freedom' and/or 'defense' in their name.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:33 AM  

mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.


Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!
 
2013-06-27 10:55:40 AM  

meat0918: coeyagi: 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.

I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Well, do they pose the question (amendment) and try to drive up support or wait for it to accumulate naturally at the state levels?  If you pose the question now, the GOP still can drive out their frothy base to attack it and you may cost yourselves an election or two, but it is the right think to do, just not very politically astute.  Or do you wait a few years where you have nearly half the states on board?  I say wait, because if you lose elections, you can't beat the drum slowly because you initially beat the drum too fast.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:41 AM  

coeyagi: 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.


They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.
 
2013-06-27 10:55:58 AM  

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: "Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.


For your sanity's sake, it's best not to get too curious.
 
2013-06-27 10:56:12 AM  
Huelskamp's would-be marriage Amendment will have trouble getting the necessary 2/3 majority ratification from the House, let alone 2/3 of the Senate (where a majority of the Senators openly support legalization of same-sex marriage) or ratification by 38 states (given there's 10 states which legislated in support of same-sex marriage, and three more blue states where it came by court order).

He'll be lucky if it meets the Hastert Rule threshold.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:18 AM  
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"


Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:29 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.


Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.
 
2013-06-27 10:57:46 AM  
Since this will restore the balance and prevent the devolving of marriage into pure monkey-like debauchery, I have to know what will happen to those of us who acted quickly.

I may need to return some sexy goat lingerie.

/Don't judge me
 
2013-06-27 10:58:08 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: 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.


Constitutional conventions are also part of the Constitution. And starting from scratch = new civil war = revolution.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:26 AM  

meat0918: coeyagi: 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.

I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Well, we have that. The same equal protection clause that invalidated DOMA. We don't need a new one because we already have it. We just need people to stop trying to take it away again.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:50 AM  

GhostFish: I'm a bit amused that these people are so eager to make it legal to strip away rights and freedoms based on religious grounds.

A bit amused, and a bit frightened.


Hopefully amusement will outpace fear when the main voting block for these guys dies of old age and these politicians are forced either to change or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
 
2013-06-27 10:58:58 AM  

Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.


They really should stop beating around the bush and just start the Norsefire party already.  Hell, pay John Hurt some money and he'll even be the head of it for real.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:01 AM  
FTA: 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."

Sounds like a good argument for polygamy.  And that is, after all, traditional marriage, as the hand of God derpity derp derp derp etc.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:49 AM  
annanimmity.com
 
2013-06-27 10:59:51 AM  

coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.


If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.
 
2013-06-27 10:59:57 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.



Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.
 
2013-06-27 11:00:43 AM  

EyeballKid: mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.

Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!


Capital Hill Blue.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:02 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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.


Yeesh, I hope I get grandfathered in so I don't have to go back to my ex.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:13 AM  
FTA: 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 noticed he didn't put a citation on that.  I will put one done for the counter argument.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting- st udy/

In effect, it says "F*CK YOU, YOU LYING TEA BAG PIECES OF AMPHIBIAN SH*T."
 
2013-06-27 11:01:43 AM  

MisterRonbo: social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad,"


How do you scientifically show that someone deserves something?
 
2013-06-27 11:01:49 AM  

abb3w: Huelskamp's would-be marriage Amendment will have trouble getting the necessary 2/3 majority ratification from the House, let alone 2/3 of the Senate (where a majority of the Senators openly support legalization of same-sex marriage) or ratification by 38 states (given there's 10 states which legislated in support of same-sex marriage, and three more blue states where it came by court order).

He'll be lucky if it meets the Hastert Rule threshold.


I think I saw somewhere that about 180 representatives publicly support letting same-sex couples get married. Presuming that every single one of those people voted against sending a federal marriage amendment to the states, the House would be a minimum of 45 votes short of the supermajority.
 
2013-06-27 11:01:59 AM  
The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.
 
2013-06-27 11:02:14 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 I'm sure his panties were in JUST as much of a twist when the gays were getting the shaft, so to speak... Right? He stood up for rights? What? Only when it fits his agenda? No way!
 
2013-06-27 11:02:31 AM  

James!: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.


Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:32 AM  

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:33 AM  

coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.


Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.
 
2013-06-27 11:03:34 AM  

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


I like you.
 
2013-06-27 11:04:07 AM  

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


Maybe they're not? Bachmann is leaving Congress in 2014, and Huelskamps from the derpiest state yet derping.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:02 AM  

Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.


Jesus, man, some asshole lackey from the Hill could be reading this and taking feverish notes for his boss while spanking it to Grindr on a work laptop while a crucified Jesus hangs on the wall, berating the staffer silently.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:12 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.


Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:26 AM  

DarnoKonrad: 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.


Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.


Just look at all the morans who stayed home in 2010, despite two years of Tea Party weapons-grade derp. Those non-voters really screwed the rest of us, because while the Tea Party might be the worst thing for the country, its supporters vote. If you didn't vote in 2010, it's your fault, I blame you.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:27 AM  

DarnoKonrad: 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.


Well Democrats are quite good at siting on their hands during off term elections.


2010 makes me madder and madder at my fellow libs every time I think about it.
 
2013-06-27 11:05:41 AM  

coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.


Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:02 AM  

Serious Black: Odds on at least one Republican Senate candidate losing their election in 2014 because they supported a federal marriage amendment? I'd say they've got to be close to even now.


That one will be hard to tell. It all depends on whether the Democrats manage to mobiliize worth a damn in 2014.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:21 AM  
Yeah, you couldn't get a constitutional amendment for hetero marriage in the early to mid 90's, when like half this country assumed gay people would be extinct from AIDS in 20 years, but you're going to get it now when 14 states allow same sex marriage. Keep telling yourself that, fundies.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:41 AM  

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.


Are you reading your own typing? No way the Democrats allow a Constitutional amendment get RATIFIED to pass a debt ceiling bill.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:45 AM  
If they couldn't get this done 20 years ago with public opinion strongly in their favour (and if they could have, they certainly would have), it isn't happening in 2013.
 
2013-06-27 11:07:00 AM  

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: "Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.



Probably something like this: "Pricipal . Caught sayof school that has stoped Handstandsing 'See, told ya so' Is He dead or not. CNN Says yes. St. Pete Times Looking for chads -OR- 'hello, I am write single to salute and wait for answer again.'"

But not as cogent.
 
2013-06-27 11:07:52 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


"I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:20 AM  

meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment. They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


A pointless gesture. Similarly to a ban, it would have near zero chance of getting to ratification. You might get 2/3 of the Senate to support it with a minor miracle, but almost no chance of that level in the House, and (barring further action before the judiciary, and considering the modest state-level effects of gerrymandering) it seems likely that there will be at least 13 state legislatures net opposed to gay marriage through 2020.

More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).
 
2013-06-27 11:08:33 AM  

Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.


I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:47 AM  

James!: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: 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.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.


Any talk/deeds about amending the Constitution should be regarded mostly as pandering to the base. Democrats do the same thing when they get handed a defeat in some area precious to their core constituency. For one example, look at the posturing that went on after the Citizens United decision was handed down. They were going to pass new laws, yada yada yada. Or should I say nada nada nada, since nothing much has happened. As will be the case with enshrining straight marriage in the Constitution.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:54 AM  

James!: coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.

Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.


Promote, yes, their own pockets, actual legislative day-to-day crap, no.
 
2013-06-27 11:09:24 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'm sure that's their plan, but I'm equally sure that these guys just don't realize quite how far on the wrong side of history they are on this one. This is going to be one of those things, twenty years from now, that that GOP will have to struggle to live down.
 
2013-06-27 11:09:40 AM  

verbaltoxin: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.

Are you reading your own typing? No way the Democrats allow a Constitutional amendment get RATIFIED to pass a debt ceiling bill.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-27 11:09:50 AM  
Nothing pisses off a Republican like an American gaining freedom.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:02 AM  
In a few more years, we should start getting some data on divorce rates on gays to compare with straights.  And if the gays divorce less than the rest of us, we'll have a Defense of Marriage Act to make gay marriages legal throughout the country.  Just speculating here.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:21 AM  

palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.


I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:34 AM  

abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


Except that any piece of legislation seems to need 60 votes in the Senate if the minority so chooses.
 
2013-06-27 11:11:34 AM  

coeyagi: James!: coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.

Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.

Promote, yes, their own pockets, actual legislative day-to-day crap, no.


Let them bleed their wallets trying to sell an amendment that will never pass.  An amendment that would literally tear families apart.  It's a win for Democrats.
 
2013-06-27 11:11:56 AM  

James!: MisterRonbo: social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad,"

How do you scientifically show that someone deserves something?


It's the same science that proves civilization will collapse if two dudes or two dudettes can marry each other.

It's actually a very simple "If X then Y" logic set. Where X = "gay" and Y = "anything bad you feel like saying".
 
2013-06-27 11:12:10 AM  

palelizard: Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.

I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.


In the South, anything more liberal than a baptist is a heathen and a blasphemer. Episcopalians (one of the churches that recognizes gays, allows women in the clergy, etc) are going straight to hell in the eyes of baptists.
 
2013-06-27 11:12:14 AM  
FTFA:  Asked if he would have the leadership's support, Huelskamp pointed to a statement from House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) expressing disappointment in the decisions. Boehner's comments were less forceful than those from more conservative House Republicans, though.

Heh.  Even Boehner's probably getting sick and tired of this shiat.  He probably realizes there are bigger fish to fry.

/doesn't mean he isn't disappointed by SCOTUS's ruling--a conservative SCOTUS, I might add--he's just got more important things on his mind.
 
2013-06-27 11:12:38 AM  

abb3w: meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment. They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.

A pointless gesture. Similarly to a ban, it would have near zero chance of getting to ratification. You might get 2/3 of the Senate to support it with a minor miracle, but almost no chance of that level in the House, and (barring further action before the judiciary, and considering the modest state-level effects of gerrymandering) it seems likely that there will be at least 13 state legislatures net opposed to gay marriage through 2020.

More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


The Respect for Marriage Act has already been reintroduced in both chambers.
 
2013-06-27 11:13:15 AM  

coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.


That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?
 
2013-06-27 11:14:33 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."

There were literally ZERO households with children that did not have both a mom and dad before the SCOTUS decision. ZERO I say!
 
2013-06-27 11:14:35 AM  

jjorsett: I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage


Isn't Rand Paul supposedly a libertarian?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes same-sex marriage

I'm not really arguing against either of your statements on their own, I'm arguing that one doesn't necessarily follow the other.
 
2013-06-27 11:14:39 AM  

EyeballKid: "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


There are plenty of things to use against Bush. You don't have to keep using a made up "quote". This supposed statement was debunked years ago.
 
2013-06-27 11:15:08 AM  

Mr. Titanium: In a few more years, we should start getting some data on divorce rates on gays to compare with straights.  And if the gays divorce less than the rest of us, we'll have a Defense of Marriage Act to make gay marriages legal throughout the country.  Just speculating here.


In Britain, same-sex couples split up half as often as opposite-sex couples.
 
2013-06-27 11:15:28 AM  

Mercutio74: Except that any piece of legislation seems to need 60 votes in the Senate if the minority so chooses.


Barring a nuclear hissy fit by the majority leader, yes. Regardless, it's easier than a 2/3 majority vote; and seems likely easier than getting past the Hastert rule under present composition of the House.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:29 AM  
I think it's a great idea to propose an Amendment to limit folks' rights. It is the sort of thing that will drive a wedge within the party, and when the pushback comes, a lot of Senators and Reps are going to go down, and go down hard--and not just in a bus terminal bathroom sense. It is what will define the party to a generation, and it is an opportunity to shed some of the idiocy, or it will be a chance to drive out the spiteful and mean spirited from the party entirely. What it will do is get talking heads blabbering back and forth, and it will expose the nature of how the government works, and the shake down will be a slightly more educated public, and possibly even the realization of the huge can of worms that such a change to the Constitution will bring.

This is an opportunity. And sadly, I suspect that there are more than a few Reps who are willing to charge right down this gangplank and leap right off the end, just to prove how "righteous" they are. Godspeed, you shining, crazy diamonds. Godspeed.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: 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."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.

Also, will he sponsor a bill that would take children away from single parents? Inquiring minds want to know.


Nope - it would just:
1. Force single parents to marry their baby mamas/baby daddies, even if they were raped by an immediate family member. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
2. Mandate that widows/widowers remarry within three months of spousal death. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
3. Pardon all currently incarcerated mothers and fathers - even serial rapists and killers. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.


meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Honestly, I'd rather see the Democrats counter by proposing to repeal the Second Amendment.  Not with any expectation of it being taken seriously... just want to see some conservative media hosts' heads explode.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:49 AM  
Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. I really, really don't understand why none of these people get called out on why they don't pay attention to the other sections of Leviticus and only this one? I guarantee you she was wearing more than one type of fiber, and I could guess that she probably violates all sorts of things from the same section on probably a daily basis.

This is all getting so, so tiring. Hypocritical bigots using the "good" book to justify hatred and inequality for others. The sad part is they're to daft to even realize it.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:06 AM  

EyeballKid: mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.

Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!


I just thought of something else; would any of the sites you suggested actually fit the criteria I posted?  I mean, I know they all use fake sources, but do any of them ever retract a story?  Part of being a misinformation machine is that you never admit error.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:13 AM  

Car_Ramrod: 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.


No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!
 
2013-06-27 11:18:29 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.


The part of her quote that caught my eye was "a holy God" the normal way of saying that is simply "God" or "holy God" or even "the holy God"  but by using "a" she is saying there is more than one holy god.  (which means God should be god).  I am certain her base would need their fainting coaches if they were able to think about what she said.  But alas, "they not so good with the English."
 
2013-06-27 11:19:02 AM  

abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.
 
2013-06-27 11:19:30 AM  
They may as well try to draft a law stating that the tide can no longer come in.

You guys lost on this one. It's over. Get over yourselves.
 
2013-06-27 11:20:51 AM  

Serious Black: The Respect for Marriage Act has already been reintroduced in both chambers.


Yeah, the Democratic congresscritters aren't completely stupid.
 
2013-06-27 11:20:59 AM  

jjorsett: Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU

common sense and basic math deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money?
 
2013-06-27 11:21:03 AM  

jjorsett: Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


Oh look, a Libertarian defending the rights of a group of people trying to restrict the rights of another group of people.

Color me shocked. But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

Dude, this is why people around here don't have any respect for your philosophy. For some reason, Libertarian notions of "freedom" always seem to cut against those who yearn for it the most.
 
2013-06-27 11:21:42 AM  

BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.
 
2013-06-27 11:22:59 AM  

BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


"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."
 
2013-06-27 11:23:29 AM  
Ratification, how does it work?
 
2013-06-27 11:23:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.

I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.


That would be a refreshing blast of honesty in politics, especially from Bachmann.

kidgenius: In the South, anything more liberal than a baptist is a heathen and a blasphemer. Episcopalians (one of the churches that recognizes gays, allows women in the clergy, etc) are going straight to hell in the eyes of baptists.


Yeah, I grew up in SC.  There were lots of ways to get yourself into social trouble.
 
2013-06-27 11:24:00 AM  
Doctor Funkenstein

Whoa, hold up. There's a monthly bagger meeting where they get together with reporters to answer questions about their crazy asshattery? Why the fark is there not a live feed on here to each and every one of these when it happens? It's got to be like watching a monkey dressed up like a cowboy that suffered a head injury try to fark a cactus. At first, you'd find it hilarious but after a bit it's going to be sad and your just going to want that monkey to stop before he hurts himself more. But with each prick to the dick you know that little bastard is going jump right back on that thing and start grinding some more with the same results.

Can't. . . . . stop. . . . . laughing. . . .
 
2013-06-27 11:24:39 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Car_Ramrod: 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.

No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!


It's like when people worry, "But HOW am I going to EXPLAIN this to my CHILDREN?!"

Just tell them, "Some boys like girls, some like boys. Some girls like boys, some like girls." PROBLEM SOLVED. How hard is that? Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?
 
2013-06-27 11:24:41 AM  

palelizard: Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.

I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.

That would be a refreshing blast of honesty in politics, especially from Bachmann.


It would not surprise me at all to hear that come from her mouth.
 
2013-06-27 11:25:27 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?


Oh jj, have you ever heard the phrase "not mutually exclusive"?
 
2013-06-27 11:26:04 AM  

BMulligan: Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


Emphasis added:

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.


In so far as a marriage may be considered an official record in one state, Congress can require that all other states recognize the marriage as equal to a marriage recorded by the other state.
 
2013-06-27 11:26:21 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?


global.fncstatic.com
 
2013-06-27 11:26:56 AM  
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

Then why are you so worked up about it then?

Also what is this "a holy God" bit?  Are there unholy ones?  Personally I would like to see Poseidon back.

These conservatives should just rename themselves the Pharisee party.
 
2013-06-27 11:27:08 AM  

bluorangefyre: 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.


The worst is PJ O'Rourke. EVERYONE should read Parliament of Whores not just because it shows that every "unprecedented" thing in politics today was already happening 20 years ago but because it has some really great, biting humor that doesn't treat anything as sacred. I tried to read an O'Rourke article a few years back and he has become completely bitter and nasty in his commentary; too much bile to be funny.
 
2013-06-27 11:28:11 AM  
Republican Priorities.........


Dead Voting Rights Act: Meh

Dead Miranda Rights: Finally.

Dead DOMA: OMFGBBQARGLEBARGLE! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! ALL HANDS ON DECK! WE MUST STOP THIS ABOMINATION AT ONCE!!!
 
2013-06-27 11:28:18 AM  

Serious Black: In Britain, same-sex couples split up half as often as opposite-sex couples.


No one ever makes the rash decision to get gay married after they knock up their gay SO.   No one ever gets pressured by their family and/or church to get gay married.  No one ever gets an arranged gay marriage.

Throw out all those bad reasons for getting hitched, and we heteros could enjoy the much-more sanctified institution of marriage that the gays do!
 
2013-06-27 11:28:25 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?


The sad thing is, I am fairly Conservative--albeit in a more classical sense, as opposed to the radicalized fashion that has taken over the party and redubbed its brand of radicalism "Conservative"--and I'm not afraid to admit it. My issue has been, and still is, the radical elements that have taken the party by storm, often under the guise of calling their own brand of radicalism "Libertarian" because NeoCons seem to have a lock on the economic radical base, and the Religious Right has their own "Family Values" plank--that pretty much seems to disapprove of how anyone else's family is comprised or run.

I AM a Conservative, who has a particular dislike for the radicalism that has infested the party. Radical notions on economics--and sadly, this has infected the party since folks realized that Voodoo Economics' faults could be shifted to Democrats for not letting them GO DEEPER! with a plan that has the hallmarks of the worst of the boom/bust cycles and tossing away regulation that has kept us from the sweep of Robber Barons reviving themselves from a cold, dark sleep--and radical notions of foreign and domestic policy that really hate on anyone who questions exactly who shooting up, jailing, and selling off property without much process protects anyone. It used to mean a careful and considered position, weighing factors and looking for the greatest good, for the longest period, for the most folks. That brand of Conservative thought has passed, and we have instead radicals who want dig their heels in and call what were fairly radical notions even in the days of Jim Crow, and call them "Conservative" because it really sucks to be called out on being a radical.

We are losing good Conservative voices, and losing them to a rebranding of "Conservative" thought that is nothing more than noxious radicalism and jingoistic notions, and making the term Conservative as much poison to a party as Liberal was branded. I don't mind being called Conservative, but I do mind that radicals who pose as Conservatives have very much tarnished the party and the process.
 
2013-06-27 11:28:31 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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.


Well, this douche is gonna force me to have to explain to my kids that some people are a-holes and I don't wanna do that, so we need a Constitutional amendment banning being an a-hole.
 
2013-06-27 11:28:37 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit

Serious Black: Full faith and credit


...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.
 
2013-06-27 11:29:02 AM  

BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


"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 problem before was that there was no rational basis for Congress to DENY marriage benefits from traveling interstate, but there are many rational bases for expanding/allowing it between the states.

// unless I've gotten something wrong
 
2013-06-27 11:29:10 AM  
What, did they discover that there are more Amendments than the first two?
 
2013-06-27 11:30:09 AM  

dinch: Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman.


The Bible also says that we shouldn't kill each other, and yet, we have laws allowing us to do just that.

Jesus constantly spoke out about people not being greedy and yet there are many laws in our nation that allow us to be as greedy as we damn well please.

But for some weird reason we have to keep the gays from being married because THAT would really piss God off.
 
2013-06-27 11:31:13 AM  
I just hope they don't try to make restrictions on marriage like they do abortion, such as:

Mandatory ultrasounds of the couples ring fingers.

Crysis marriage counseling for gays only

Waiting periods.

Mandatory HIV testing.

Special state taxes on gay couples only.

Exorbitant marriage license in fees at the courthouse only.

just to name a few
 
2013-06-27 11:32:12 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


You and I both know that it was never true. So why beat that dead horse?
 
2013-06-27 11:34:28 AM  
How will I be able to explain to my kids that some people think tax cuts are a moral issue? It doesn't even make sense to me!
 
2013-06-27 11:34:58 AM  

factoryconnection: No one ever makes the rash decision to get gay married after they knock up their gay SO. No one ever gets pressured by their family and/or church to get gay married. No one ever gets an arranged gay marriage.


A lot of heteros stay together "for the children" or due to pressure from their family or church. And I have to think anyone in an arranged marriage is facing pretty strong taboos against divorce.
 
2013-06-27 11:35:02 AM  

coeyagi: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Jesus, man, some asshole lackey from the Hill could be reading this and taking feverish notes for his boss while spanking it to Grindr on a work laptop while a crucified Jesus hangs on the wall, berating the staffer silently.


Okay, that's COMPLETELY outside the realm of possibility.

You can't get Grindr to work on a laptop, it's solely a smartphone app!
 
2013-06-27 11:35:15 AM  

clkeagle: Nope - it would just:
1. Force single parents to marry their baby mamas/baby daddies, even if they were raped by an immediate family member. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
2. Mandate that widows/widowers remarry within three months of spousal death. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
3. Pardon all currently incarcerated mothers and fathers - even serial rapists and killers. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.


It would be tremendously awesome-sauce if a Dem introduced a bill using that wording.  The sad thing is I'm not sure everyone would get the joke.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh look, a Libertarian defending the rights of a group of people trying to restrict the rights of another group of people.

Color me shocked. But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

Dude, this is why people around here don't have any respect for your philosophy. For some reason, Libertarian notions of "freedom" always seem to cut against those who yearn for it the most.


One doesn't have to agree with the Republican agenda to think they've got the right to have one.  If they want to spew their vile hate-filled garbage and try and fail over and over again to change things, the system in place is the appropriate venue to do so.  It's stupid, it takes time and effort away from real issues, and the world they desire is against our Constitutional values, but they're allowed to have those opinions, and they're allowed to use the system to try and make them reality.  We just have to remember they're evil, and crush them at every turn--but also from within the system.

Just because we don't agree with their philosophy does not mean we have the right to prevent them from voicing it.
 
2013-06-27 11:35:22 AM  

mispelled username: Crysis marriage counseling for gays only


If they're already gamers, I assume they'd play online multiplayer?  I guess they'd start with the single player campaign if they weren't familiar with FPSs.
 
2013-06-27 11:35:48 AM  

Mercutio74: mispelled username: Crysis marriage counseling for gays only

If they're already gamers, I assume they'd play online multiplayer?  I guess they'd start with the single player campaign if they weren't familiar with FPSs.


damn speech to text
 
2013-06-27 11:36:09 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.


Serious Black: BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.

"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."


abb3w: BMulligan: Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.

Emphasis added:

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.

In so far as a marriage may be considered an official record in one state, Congress can require that all other states recognize the marriage as equal to a marriage recorded by the other state.


The Full Faith and Credit clause is not an enumerated power. The only way in which FFC affects Congress is that it permits Congress to determine how the acts, records, and proceedings of a state may be proved. Itr does not grant Congress any authority to legislate in an area that is central to state sovereignty. You all may be right, but I don't think so - I don't think legislation of the type proposed by  abb3w would pass constitutional muster. Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.
 
2013-06-27 11:36:58 AM  

lockers: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

You and I both know that it was never true. So why beat that dead horse?


Because teabaggers still insist that is what they are.
 
2013-06-27 11:37:17 AM  

ariseatex: coeyagi: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Jesus, man, some asshole lackey from the Hill could be reading this and taking feverish notes for his boss while spanking it to Grindr on a work laptop while a crucified Jesus hangs on the wall, berating the staffer silently.

Okay, that's COMPLETELY outside the realm of possibility.

You can't get Grindr to work on a laptop, it's solely a smartphone app!


You know how I know I'm not gay?
 
2013-06-27 11:38:14 AM  

bluorangefyre: 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.


Heck the party isn't even the same as it was at the onset of Dubya's term as prez.
 
2013-06-27 11:38:40 AM  
Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.
 
2013-06-27 11:39:02 AM  

BMulligan: The Full Faith and Credit clause is not an enumerated power. The only way in which FFC affects Congress is that it permits Congress to determine how the acts, records, and proceedings of a state may be proved. Itr does not grant Congress any authority to legislate in an area that is central to state sovereignty. You all may be right, but I don't think so - I don't think legislation of the type proposed by  abb3w would pass constitutional muster. Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.


If that 's how you interpret the FF&C clause, then then the States have no right under the Constitution to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
 
2013-06-27 11:40:07 AM  

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


Ire, or laughing at the folks who actually think it'll work?

'Cause I'm doing the latter.
 
2013-06-27 11:43:38 AM  

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


Nobody is lauding the process for which they are trying to use, it's the reason behind it.

It must be really hard for GOP apologists to keep rationalizing the awful acts of the Republicans by projecting issues onto liberals. Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-06-27 11:44:26 AM  

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


Well, the mockery isn't because they're intending to do it, the mockery is that they think it has any chance at all of working.  That being said, why in this modern time someone would be interested in restricting civil rights in the constitution is beyond me.  You'd think the country should get freer, not more restrictive.
 
2013-06-27 11:44:51 AM  

BMulligan: The Full Faith and Credit clause is not an enumerated power. The only way in which FFC affects Congress is that it permits Congress to determine how the acts, records, and proceedings of a state may be proved. Itr does not grant Congress any authority to legislate in an area that is central to state sovereignty. You all may be right, but I don't think so - I don't think legislation of the type proposed by abb3w would pass constitutional muster. Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.


A number of Republicans have proposed and voted for legislation that would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits regardless of what state issued them. There's a LOT more variance in who can get a CCH and what training they have to go through to get it than there is in getting a marriage license. While somebody might try to sue over their state being forced to legally recognize a same-sex couple as married, I don't think it would be a principled attack on the law that would go very far.
 
2013-06-27 11:45:52 AM  

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


We're not mad. We're amused watching you guys beat your head against the wall.

But keep going. You're really inspiring young voters to never vote for people in your party.
 
2013-06-27 11:46:03 AM  

coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?

Oh jj, have you ever heard the phrase "not mutually exclusive"?


More like:

criticalvoter.com
 
2013-06-27 11:46:25 AM  

Lexx: 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?


I'd say the one that was ratified later would take precedence.  Of course, I also think the VRA is constitutional under the 15th Amendment, which apparently the Supreme Court does not.  I'm still reading through that decision.  So far I've seen a foot note about the 15th amendment.  However, they did rule properly on DOMA and essentially punted on Prop 8 but with the proper result.
 
2013-06-27 11:47:18 AM  

that bosnian sniper: ...and to think people were arguing with me in the SCOTUS thread about the Republicans not using this as a wedge issue in the 2014 elections.


That's the GOP strategy for 2014: get a wedge issue up there: DOMA repealed, check. Prevent voters from opposition to vote: VRA neutered, check. Any future raised voice from opposition will feel the power of law enforcement: Miranda made cryptic, check.
 
2013-06-27 11:48:22 AM  

Lando Lincoln: dinch: Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Bible also says that we shouldn't kill each other, and yet, we have laws allowing us to do just that.

Jesus constantly spoke out about people not being greedy and yet there are many laws in our nation that allow us to be as greedy as we damn well please.

But for some weird reason we have to keep the gays from being married because THAT would really piss God off.


Well, there's a LOT in Leviticus that God should be pissed at us about...

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
Again, not a huge deal to most Christian churches.

3.       Eating fat (3:17)
Southern cuisine is in trouble

4.       Eating blood (3:17)
German cuisine is in trouble.

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've witnessed (5:1)
Congress is in trouble.

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've been told about (5:1)
Congress is REALLY in trouble

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
Hope you don't like pork...

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
Again, Congress is REALLY in trouble

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
HOAs are against God...

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
Much of America is DOOMED...

11.   Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)
The candle trade for saints is apparently DOOOOOOM!

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
Hipsters, teens, and much of Hollywood is DOOOOOMED!

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)
Wrasslin' is the work of the Debbil

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)
Catholics, we're looking right at you....

15.   Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
Rib joints are the work of the Debbil...

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)
Hope you aren't a fan of football...

17.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
Red Lobster is the work of the Debbil...

18.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
In fairness, this means that Newage folks are DOOOOOMED!

19.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
Cicadas may be out.

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)
Roof rabbit may have doomed the entire Greatest Generation...

21.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
Hope you haven't had gator bites...

22.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
Rattlesnake BBQ is RIGHT out...

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
Hope you aren't having that Christening too early, you naughty folks...

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
See the above, but double time for the girlchil'run...

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)
Which is not a bad rule to have, but let's face it, this rule pretty much takes out a good section of 90s day time TV

26.   Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)
Not a bad rule either, but see the above section on reality TV...

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)
This one is going to have Kentucky and good sections of the South, and Maine in trouble...

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
Not a bad rule at all, and...ewwwww....

29: Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
See the earlier section on day time TV...

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
Again, see the section on day time TV...

31.   Having sex with your uncle's wife (18:14)
Man, Maury would be screwed if we damn everyone for this...

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
Maury may have sent a brazillion folks to Hell for this...

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
Congress may be in trouble here too...

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)
Alan Clarke and Maury are soooo screwed on this.

35.   Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
Man, day time TV is just rife with sinfulness. Should we let children watch this smut?

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
Redwings. Apparently, always a bad idea...

37.   Having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20)
Congress, and a fair amount of middle America is sooooo boned...

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
In fairness, I'm all for religious freedom, but this seems like a good, commonsense rule.

39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)
The Scots apparently have generations of sending kindling to Hell...

41.   Making idols or "metal gods" (19:4)
Catholics, you may be in some trouble here...

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
Yup. We're supposed to leave stuff for the poor and destitute to glean from the fields...

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
Factory farming is the work of the Debbil...

44.   Stealing (19:11)
Congress and much of the legal system is so screwed...

45.   Lying (19:11)
Is there anything Congress CAN do then?

46.   Swearing falsely on God's name (19:12)
Pat Robertson and Congress apparently makes Jehovah wroth...

47.   Defrauding your neighbor (19:13)
Real estate and much of America is boned. You'll note how wroth folks are about this one, while being ghey is just the work of the Debbil...

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)
Paychecks are the work of the Debbil...

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
God is hard on douchebags...

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
Congress in both houses are boned...

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)
As are the tabloids...

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour's life (19:16)
Most of America and the "here, hold my beer" crowd is screwed...

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
Congress...you are sooooooooo going ALL of you to Hell...

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
Walmart, Sears, and Target. Agents of Satan...

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
God IS against GMO husbandry...

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
Put down the basil and the tomatoes. I don't care if they DO complement one another's growth, it's BAD!

57.   Sleeping with another man's slave (19:20)
Seriously. Bad form folks. Bad form.

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
The apple industry is the work of the Debbil...

59.   Practicing divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
Miss Cleo is the work of the Debbil, and here we have this sin IN OUR PAPERS!

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)
Look at all the dirty bastiches who do this. LOOK AT THEM!

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
The Marines are the work of the Debbil...

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)
Tramp stamps and memorial tattoos are the work of the Debbil...

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
Daytime TV is SUCH a sinful place...

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
Miss Cleo. Leading a nation into sin and depravity...

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
Welp, this one seems right out today...

66.   Mistreating foreigners - "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born"  (19:33-34)
Guess that means we can stop those Oathkeepers and Sheriff Joe from being mean to the immigrants then, right?

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
My industry is boned as a whole, as is pretty much most of the oil industry as well...

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
Maury and the rest could have made a few bucks by televising the stonings though...

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
Odd, that you don't see more folks incensed by this...

70.   Entering a place where there's a dead body as a priest (21:11)
Which pretty much means that all our chaplains are boned.

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
And in fairness, it's rude too. Eating mama and her babies is just greedy...

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
Man, we are going to need a LOT of stones. Just in the State legislatures, and let's not even get onto Congress...

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else's animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
This WOULD end cockfighting and dogfighting quick though...

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)
Odd, you don't see more protests and signs around real estate agencies...

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)
So, I guess we should be OK with slaves again?
 
2013-06-27 11:48:35 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: BMulligan: The Full Faith and Credit clause is not an enumerated power. The only way in which FFC affects Congress is that it permits Congress to determine how the acts, records, and proceedings of a state may be proved. Itr does not grant Congress any authority to legislate in an area that is central to state sovereignty. You all may be right, but I don't think so - I don't think legislation of the type proposed by  abb3w would pass constitutional muster. Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.

If that 's how you interpret the FF&C clause, then then the States have no right under the Constitution to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.


Except that there is substantial precedent to the contrary. Consider that no court ever required a state to recognize the validity of interracial marriage (prior to Loving).
 
2013-06-27 11:49:05 AM  
"Wednesday by the Supreme Court as legally inconsistent and detrimental to the future of the nation's children. One lawmaker pledged to soon file a constitutional amendment to reinstate the Defense of Marriage Act. "

Except them there gay children, but we don't care about them.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:07 AM  

abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.


The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.
 
2013-06-27 11:49:11 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: lockers: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

You and I both know that it was never true. So why beat that dead horse?

Because teabaggers still insist that is what they are.


No they don't. They insist that their representatives are the most regressive social conservatives and punish anyone who considers rape babies may be anything other than a blessing from god. This is old news, is easily seen by actions. If anyone who considers themselves part of the tea party tells you otherwise, you can rightly laugh in their face.
 
2013-06-27 11:52:22 AM  

DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.


And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?
 
2013-06-27 11:52:22 AM  

hubiestubert: 1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.


Still a huge problem considering how often candle vigils are held. Consider lambic beer if you don't think this happens on a regular basis.
 
2013-06-27 11:53:27 AM  

Car_Ramrod: jjorsett: I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage

Isn't Rand Paul supposedly a libertarian?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes same-sex marriage

I'm not really arguing against either of your statements on their own, I'm arguing that one doesn't necessarily follow the other.


The problem is, most people who claim they're libertarian, actually aren't(not saying you are or aren't jj, just making a general statement). It's not cool to be a republican anymore, so they just picked a new word(and kept the same beliefs). Sorta like the Democratic Republic of the Congo is neither democratic nor a republic.
 
2013-06-27 11:53:28 AM  
With regards to the fundie nutjob response to the SCOTUS ruling, a wise old woman said it best: "Who cares?"
 
2013-06-27 11:58:23 AM  
The Constitution is the most perfect document ever conceived by a group of Jesus-inspired Founding Fathers so brilliant and forward-thinking that their ideas are sacrosanct for all eternity EXCEPT when I feel icky and want to distract from curious stirrings in my swimsuit area!!
 
2013-06-27 11:58:54 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.


While thankfully this isn't the case at present, we do need to watch out for that kind of one-party control from an ideologically coherent party. In Hungary, recently one party got enough of a parliamentary majority to amend the constitution on their own, and they've been busily amending it to consolidate their power (e.g. court-packing, allowing the executive to assign cases to courts, fiddling with terms of office).

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


At the State level Republicans appear to actually have been trying to ban abortion. They either forgot it was supposed to be a wedge issue, or the GOP kept it around so long that we got a batch of politicians that actually believe in it.
 
2013-06-27 11:58:59 AM  
hubiestubert: [long list snipped]


There you go again, constantly reminding me why you're one of my favorite farkers. Keep up the good work.
 
2013-06-27 11:59:11 AM  

lockers: hubiestubert: 1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

Still a huge problem considering how often candle vigils are held. Consider lambic beer if you don't think this happens on a regular basis.


What I want to know is why more folks aren't joining this courageous young woman in protesting this abomination to God...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-06-27 11:59:27 AM  

Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?


Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.
 
2013-06-27 12:00:05 PM  

Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?


Ignoring the logic of the decision, is there anything stopping states from recognizing other states' marriages but not recognizing them when occurring within the state?  Like someone gets a same-sex marriage in New York, then moves to SC.  SC says they'll recognize the marriage under FF&C, but it's still illegal to get a same-sex marriage (well, not illegal as in go to jail, but illegal as in they won't process the paperwork) in SC?  Like abortions, you have to go across state lines to do it.
 
2013-06-27 12:01:23 PM  

hubiestubert: lockers: hubiestubert: 1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

Still a huge problem considering how often candle vigils are held. Consider lambic beer if you don't think this happens on a regular basis.

What I want to know is why more folks aren't joining this courageous young woman in protesting this abomination to God...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 640x438]


Because delicious biscuits. That is the only thing I can think of since Long John Silvers is better than that crap.
 
2013-06-27 12:02:46 PM  
Sorry religious wackjobs, the tide has already turned and there is no going back.  You are becoming an even tinier minority.  I understand that you don't like it and of course you are going to kick and scream, but to no avail.  I will take pleasure in watching all that you hold dearly crumble in your very hands.
 
2013-06-27 12:03:26 PM  

hubiestubert: lockers: hubiestubert: 1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

Still a huge problem considering how often candle vigils are held. Consider lambic beer if you don't think this happens on a regular basis.

What I want to know is why more folks aren't joining this courageous young woman in protesting this abomination to God...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 640x438]


I'd shell her fish!

/wait... what?
 
2013-06-27 12:03:37 PM  

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.


Pretty much this.  Just as the SCOTUS majority used yesterday's cases--which they really don't care much about--as a distraction from their main agenda items of (1) making it harder for the coloreds and the poors and other assorted non-Republicans to vote, and other methods of ensuring that Republicans win elections, and (2) handing corporate America all of the keys to the castle (including the few they don't already have) while nobody's paying attention.
 
2013-06-27 12:05:47 PM  

BMulligan: The Full Faith and Credit clause is not an enumerated power. The only way in which FFC affects Congress is that it permits Congress to determine how the acts, records, and proceedings of a state may be proved. Itr does not grant Congress any authority to legislate in an area that is central to state sovereignty. You all may be right, but I don't think so - I don't think legislation of the type proposed by  abb3w would pass constitutional muster. Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.


That's nice, but the power to enact a bill enforcing comity in marriage would be found in two places: one, the Privileges and Immunities Clause (otherwise known as the "Comity Clause"), and the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies comity to state law in addition to federal).  Being as our federal government has deemed fit to define marriage as aprivilege rather than a right, it's directly protected by those clauses.

Really, it would be a legislative restatement of what the Constitution already freakin' says (those two specific clauses in the Constitution already facially guarantee comity in marriage),  but what it would do is provide a ready-made test bed for the nationalization of marriage equality by the courts. Though, really at this point all that would have to happen is a same-sex married couple move to a state with a ban, get denied state benefits for marriage, and file suit.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:00 PM  

grumpfuff: hubiestubert: [long list snipped]


There you go again, constantly reminding me why you're one of my favorite farkers. Keep up the good work.


Seconded... if hubie was the average Republican political discourse could take the form of debating policy positions about what would be MOST beneficial to society... not the "left" trying desperately to keep the derp brigade from driving modern society into the ground.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:30 PM  
I'm less worried about these hatemongers changing the Constitution than whipping their trembling idiot dupes into a gay-bashing frenzy.
 
2013-06-27 12:08:07 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?

Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.


Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.
 
2013-06-27 12:08:07 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.


Some of the more conservative states have tried that angle as well...
 
2013-06-27 12:12:18 PM  

Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?

Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.

Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.


Maybe. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect that there would be considerable friction in that any such act of Congress would impinge on what is still considered, even in these post-Fourteenth Amendment times, the more-or-less exclusive domain of the states. But as I said, I'd be enormously happy to be proved wrong.
 
2013-06-27 12:19:50 PM  

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've noticed that only recently have Republicans been serious about abortion and other wedge issues. For years they seemed to use them as a Pavlov's bell and then largely ignored them once actually in office. Now that they're on the warpath, legislatively, it tells me that they're aware of their dwindling popularity and are reaching for anything that will endear them to a once faithful public.

I'd like to say that I'm amused by watching it all fall down, like a cat enjoys farking with its prey, but the truth is that I just want all of this bullsh*t over with.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:43 PM  

BMulligan: Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.

Maybe. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect that there would be considerable friction in that any such act of Congress would impinge on what is still considered, even in these post-Fourteenth Amendment times, the more-or-less exclusive domain of the states. But as I said, I'd be enormously happy to be proved wrong.


To be frank, considering the way  Windsor was handed down, I would be rather cynical of that. The Court dodged the hell out of extending LGBT's suspect classification, nor identifying marriage as a fundamental right. Either would be necessary to invoke the strict scrutiny necessary for a  Loving-style broad ruling on Equal Protection grounds.  You'll notice the Court used anad hoc "careful consideration" standard to dodge strict scrutiny, which I suspect was Kennedy's hand in the decision upon which the standard of review was based.

The best shot, at least in my opinion, for striking Section 2 of DOMA is going to be a challenge based upon Comity, not Equal Protection.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:09 PM  

flondrix: Three Crooked Squirrels: I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.

Some of the more conservative states have tried that angle as well...


You do realize that no-fault divorce was only enacted in 2010 in the well known conservative bastion of New York, well after the rest of the country did.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:31 PM  

Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?

Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.

Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.


I would certainly hope so, but the equal protection clause (14th amendment) is not the FFC clause (Article 4, Section 1). I'm gay & all for marriage equality, and these issues will have to be ironed out somehow. I was just pointing out that FFC might not be the remedy.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:59 PM  

BMulligan: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?

Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.

Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.

Maybe. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect that there would be considerable friction in that any such act of Congress would impinge on what is still considered, even in these post-Fourteenth Amendment times, the more-or-less exclusive domain of the states. But as I said, I'd be enormously happy to be proved wrong.


States have to recognize the marriages of interracial couples whether they like it or not. Uncle Sam said they had to because, while they have the power to regulate marriage, they do not have the power to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner.
 
2013-06-27 12:26:01 PM  

hubiestubert: jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?

The sad thing is, I am fairly Conservative--albeit in a more classical sense, as opposed to the radicalized fashion that has taken over the party and redubbed its brand of radicalism "Conservative"--and I'm not afraid to admit it. My issue has been, and still is, the radical elements that have taken the party by storm, often under the guise of calling their own brand of radicalism "Libertarian" because NeoCons seem to have a lock on the economic radical base, and the Religious Right has their own "Family Values" plank--that pretty much seems to disapprove of how anyone else's family is comprised or run.

I AM a Conservative, who has a particular dislike for the radicalism that has infested the party. Radical notions on economics--and sadly, this has infected the party since folks realized that Voodoo Economics' faults could be shifted to Democrats for not letting them GO DEEPER! with a plan that has the hallmarks of the worst of the boom/bust cycles and tossing away regulation that has kept us from the sweep of Robber Barons reviving themselves from a cold, dark sleep--and radical notions of foreign and domestic policy that really hate on anyone who questions exactly who shooting up, jailing, and selling off property without much process protects anyone. It used to mean a careful and considered position, weighing factors and looking for the greatest good, for the longest period, for the most folks. That brand of Conservative thought has passed, and we have instead radicals who want dig their heels in and call what were fairly radical notions even in the days of Jim Crow, and call them "Conservative" because it really sucks to be called ...


Yes, we know. You're a modern Democrat, which used to be called a "Republican" in the 1970s.
 
2013-06-27 12:27:14 PM  

that bosnian sniper: BMulligan: Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.

Maybe. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect that there would be considerable friction in that any such act of Congress would impinge on what is still considered, even in these post-Fourteenth Amendment times, the more-or-less exclusive domain of the states. But as I said, I'd be enormously happy to be proved wrong.

To be frank, considering the way  Windsor was handed down, I would be rather cynical of that. The Court dodged the hell out of extending LGBT's suspect classification, nor identifying marriage as a fundamental right. Either would be necessary to invoke the strict scrutiny necessary for a  Loving-style broad ruling on Equal Protection grounds.  You'll notice the Court used anad hoc "careful consideration" standard to dodge strict scrutiny, which I suspect was Kennedy's hand in the decision upon which the standard of review was based.

The best shot, at least in my opinion, for striking Section 2 of DOMA is going to be a challenge based upon Comity, not Equal Protection.


Wouldn't a Comity Clause challenge rely on the fact that a state like Texas would recognize marriage license X but not marriage license Y is not treating equally the people in those marriages? IANAL, but the ground there seems almost identical.
 
2013-06-27 12:28:48 PM  

Serious Black: BMulligan: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: Serious Black: DarwiOdrade: abb3w: Philip Francis Queeg: Full faith and credit
Serious Black: Full faith and credit

...yeah, should have figured that a response was coming quickly.

The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.

And the fact that we have never done something before now means that we are legally barred from ever doing that, right?

Of course not, but there is no precedent for the FFC being used in that way. It would take another ruling by a court - most likely eventually ending up with the SCOTUS.

Sure, it would probably end with SCOTUS. And unless one of the five who signed the majority opinion in Windsor yesterday changes their minds, I'm sure they'll look at a state (say Texas) that recognizes an opposite-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married but fails to recognize a same-sex couple who got married in Massachusetts as married and quickly decide that Texas was violating equal protection.

Maybe. I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect that there would be considerable friction in that any such act of Congress would impinge on what is still considered, even in these post-Fourteenth Amendment times, the more-or-less exclusive domain of the states. But as I said, I'd be enormously happy to be proved wrong.

States have to recognize the marriages of interracial couples whether they like it or not. Uncle Sam said they had to because, while they have the power to regulate marriage, they do not have the power to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner.


Yes, but as  that bosnian sniper pointed out, sexual identity is not a protected class triggering strict scrutiny. I'm not sure that refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage is "discriminatory" in the sense necessary to invoke equal protection (remember, equal protection requires only that  similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law - that leaves a lot of wiggle room to define "similarly situated").
 
2013-06-27 12:34:14 PM  

theknuckler_33: hubiestubert: lockers: hubiestubert: 1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

Still a huge problem considering how often candle vigils are held. Consider lambic beer if you don't think this happens on a regular basis.

What I want to know is why more folks aren't joining this courageous young woman in protesting this abomination to God...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 640x438]

I'd shell her fish!

/wait... what?


You were looking for "I'd use my rod to fish in her shell."
 
2013-06-27 12:34:42 PM  

BMulligan: Yes, but as that bosnian sniper pointed out, sexual identity is not a protected class triggering strict scrutiny. I'm not sure that refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage is "discriminatory" in the sense necessary to invoke equal protection (remember, equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law - that leaves a lot of wiggle room to define "similarly situated").


Yeah, I was really annoyed/angry that the opinion didn't outright say this. I mean, gay people have been persecuted and lynched for centuries, and their political power has only become not-so-limited in the last five years. What do you have to do to get deemed a quasi-suspect class? Get enslaved?
 
2013-06-27 12:35:17 PM  
Cyberluddite: ...making it harder for the coloreds and the poors and other assorted non-Republicans to vote, and other methods of ensuring that Republicans win elections...

Look, I have to say something about this even though it's off-topic.Roberts has a point, and a damn good one to boot. Fifty-year-old preclearance standards  do not work, and we need a new Voting Rights Act period. This has been clearly evident to anyone paying the remotest attention since 2000.  Election tampering and disenfranchisement have evolved since the days of Jim Crow in ways to which the VRA is unresponsive, and worse is the fact Northern and Midwestern states -- who were exempt from preclearance -- is in on the game as well.

Sure, Congress can't find its own ass with both hands and a road map in broad daylight,  if it were so inclined. That's Congress' (and the idiots who vote for Congressmen) problem, not the Court's.
 
2013-06-27 12:36:59 PM  

BMulligan: Yes, but as  that bosnian sniper pointed out, sexual identity is not a protected class triggering strict scrutiny. I'm not sure that refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage is "discriminatory" in the sense necessary to invoke equal protection (remember, equal protection requires only that  similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law - that leaves a lot of wiggle room to define "similarly situated").


Yeah, but couldn't the argument get made that if a man has the 'right' to marry a woman, a woman has the same right to marry a woman?  It makes it less an identity issue and more one of gender.
 
2013-06-27 12:38:38 PM  

Target Builder: 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.


They can work it into their laser-like focus on jobs message.
 
2013-06-27 12:41:28 PM  

palelizard: BMulligan: Yes, but as  that bosnian sniper pointed out, sexual identity is not a protected class triggering strict scrutiny. I'm not sure that refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage is "discriminatory" in the sense necessary to invoke equal protection (remember, equal protection requires only that  similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law - that leaves a lot of wiggle room to define "similarly situated").

Yeah, but couldn't the argument get made that if a man has the 'right' to marry a woman, a woman has the same right to marry a woman?  It makes it less an identity issue and more one of gender.


That was the argument raised by Judge Walker in his district court opinion that will likely soon be enforced across the state. While the court has no precedence to say sexual orientation is a suspect class, it is equivalent in the case of marriage to sex because what's being discriminated against is a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, so the same scrutiny applied to sex cases should also apply to sexual orientation cases.
 
2013-06-27 12:41:58 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Cyberluddite: ...making it harder for the coloreds and the poors and other assorted non-Republicans to vote, and other methods of ensuring that Republicans win elections...

Look, I have to say something about this even though it's off-topic.Roberts has a point, and a damn good one to boot. Fifty-year-old preclearance standards  do not work, and we need a new Voting Rights Act period. This has been clearly evident to anyone paying the remotest attention since 2000.  Election tampering and disenfranchisement have evolved since the days of Jim Crow in ways to which the VRA is unresponsive, and worse is the fact Northern and Midwestern states -- who were exempt from preclearance -- is in on the game as well.

Sure, Congress can't find its own ass with both hands and a road map in broad daylight,  if it were so inclined. That's Congress' (and the idiots who vote for Congressmen) problem, not the Court's.


You're right. Electioneering has evolved, but because of the court's decision, the chicanery happening in the Midwest will now move down south.

Young people in Texas are very, very worried that on election day, they'll be stuck with one, understaffed polling office in a 20 mi. radius, and the polls will close before all of them get the chance to vote.

/Yes, yes, I'm aware of absentee and mail-in ballots but there are tons of tricks to be pulled with those too.
 
2013-06-27 12:47:13 PM  
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"


No it wasn't. Marriage originally had nothing to do with love was invented by man as a way to ensure property was transferred with-in the family, create alliances between two families and sometimes to stop wars. That's why "traditional marriages" involved dowries and were always arranged. It wasn't until much, much later, when society moved away from an agrarian one where people started to be able to marry people they wanted to marry.
 
2013-06-27 12:48:23 PM  

palelizard: BMulligan: Yes, but as  that bosnian sniper pointed out, sexual identity is not a protected class triggering strict scrutiny. I'm not sure that refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage is "discriminatory" in the sense necessary to invoke equal protection (remember, equal protection requires only that  similarly situated persons be treated equally under the law - that leaves a lot of wiggle room to define "similarly situated").

Yeah, but couldn't the argument get made that if a man has the 'right' to marry a woman, a woman has the same right to marry a woman?  It makes it less an identity issue and more one of gender.


Maybe. That wouldn't trigger strict scrutiny, though - it would put us in the very murky realm of intermediate scrutiny, applied in cases of alleged gender discrimination. If strict scrutiny means "the government almost always loses," and rational basis means "the government almost always wins," intermediate scrutiny means "no one knows how the hell this will turn out."
 
2013-06-27 12:48:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


Look, the Tea Party is concerned exclusively with fiscal issues; specifically the burden of large government, debt, entitlements and taxes.  Also tricorner hats and participation of the elderly in revolutionary war cosplay, but mainly fiscal issues.  The commitment to fiscal issues is paramount, in addition to Jesus and faith based governance and eliminating sodomy and teh gay, and tricorner hats and elderly cosplayers.  Also Israel, but primarily fiscal issues, Jesus, faith based governance, eliminating the gay, tricorner hats and elderly cosplaying.  Also the freedoms, not the first amendment per se, but definitely the second, but mostly fiscal issues, Jesus, faith based government, tricorner hats and elderly cosplay.  Because of the Tea Party's commitment to fiscal issues, we can't turn our back on keeping America American, by building a wall, enforcing voter IDs, literacy tests, poll taxes and property owner based voting, but really this is a movement, a nonpartisan movement, based on fiscal issues, Jesus, the freedoms, 2nd amendment remedies, faith based governance, Israel, tricorner hats and elderly cosplay and proving that Barack Obama is a muslim from Africa.  Of course republicans are supported from time to time by a nonpartisan movement, but that is because of their commitment to small government, fiscal issues, or from time to time, Jesus, freedoms, gays, Israel, birth certificates, 2nd amendment remedies, faith based governance, voting restrictions, walls for mexicans, tricorner hats and elderly cosplay.

If a Democrat ran on a platform of  small government and fiscal conservatism, and also Jesus, Israel, 2nd amendment remedies, proving Barack Obama is a Kenyan usurper, getting rid of the mexicans, restricting the right to vote, government based on faith in Jesus Christ, our lord and savior, and pissing off libtard libbies, and he ran for office while wearing a tricorner hat  and ringing Paul Revere's bells, the Tea Party would give him their full throated support.  Is that really hard to understand?
 
2013-06-27 12:51:05 PM  

Serious Black: 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.


The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.
 
2013-06-27 12:55:24 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.


You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.
 
2013-06-27 12:58:33 PM  

BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.


My neighbors told me it's a Secretariat-sired horse or no deal regarding her daughter.
 
2013-06-27 12:58:46 PM  

monoski: "Wednesday by the Supreme Court as legally inconsistent and detrimental to the future of the nation's children. One lawmaker pledged to soon file a constitutional amendment to reinstate the Defense of Marriage Act. "

Except them there gay children, but we don't care about them.


Or the offspring of gay couples, because they're still a bit confused about the stork part.
 
2013-06-27 01:01:27 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Roberts has a point, and a damn good one to boot. Fifty-year-old preclearance standards  do not work, and we need a new Voting Rights Act period.


That's a policy question, not a legal one. The Court did not decide that the VRA was in conflict with any established Constitutional law or precedent, except for creating that "equality between the states" argument out of whole cloth; instead, the Court's sole reason for striking down the VRA was because they decided it didn't like the way it was implemented. This is a massive overreach and a clear abrogation of the enumerated powers of both the judiciary and the legislature.
 
2013-06-27 01:02:07 PM  

Serious Black: BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.

My neighbors told me it's a Secretariat-sired horse or no deal regarding her daughter.


Maybe that was my problem - I simply underbid. It's okay, though, because I ended up marrying the brood mare instead, and now we're very happy together.
 
2013-06-27 01:06:33 PM  

BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.


Dude, if she's older than 3 and unmarried, just rape her. Then, you MUST take her as a wife (but you can't divorce her, either - so there's that).

// note from my attorney: DO NOT RAPE ANYONE. EVER. IN ADDITION TO THE ILLEGALITY OF IT, IT'S A SHIATTY, SHIATTY THING TO DO TO SOMEONE. IT'S ALSO VERY ILLEGAL TO RAPE A CHILD, SO DEFINITELY DON'T DO THAT. BUT REALLY 'RAPE', AS A CLASS OF ACTIONS, IS NOW AND FOREVER OFF THE TABLE. CAPISCE?
 
2013-06-27 01:09:03 PM  

Dr Dreidel: BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.

Dude, if she's older than 3 and unmarried, just rape her. Then, you MUST take her as a wife (but you can't divorce her, either - so there's that).

// note from my attorney: DO NOT RAPE ANYONE. EVER. IN ADDITION TO THE ILLEGALITY OF IT, IT'S A SHIATTY, SHIATTY THING TO DO TO SOMEONE. IT'S ALSO VERY ILLEGAL TO RAPE A CHILD, SO DEFINITELY DON'T DO THAT. BUT REALLY 'RAPE', AS A CLASS OF ACTIONS, IS NOW AND FOREVER OFF THE TABLE. CAPISCE?



The sad thing is, there are people who actually need a note like that saying, ya know, rape is really bad.
 
2013-06-27 01:15:44 PM  

hubiestubert: Well, there's a LOT in Leviticus that God should be pissed at us about...


Kind of makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking when they got together to discuss what should be in the official Bible at the time.

"Should we add Leviticus? I read through it. This book is crazy."
"Well, Moses likes it. He wants it in there."
"We're taking advice from a dude who came down the mountain all dehydrated and said a smoking bush talked to him and said he was God."
"Fair point. But he brought those tablets with him."
"Any moron can go up a mountain and carve into some rocks there."
"He parted the Red Sea."
"It was a dried up marsh."
*shrug*
"And what's up with this no eating fat. I f*cking love bacon."
*shrug*
"Fine, we'll include Leviticus. But Deutoronomy is right out!"
 
2013-06-27 01:17:53 PM  

MyRandomName: Love the ire of liberals. How insulting it must be for you when your political enemies try to actually change the constitution the way it was meant to be changed. It really shows how wrong the liberal way of changing it is.


You mean you disagree with Marbury v. Madison?
 
2013-06-27 01:22:01 PM  

Serious Black: Wouldn't a Comity Clause challenge rely on the fact that a state like Texas would recognize marriage license X but not marriage license Y is not treating equally the people in those marriages? IANAL, but the ground there seems almost identical.


Like I said, it boils down to the status of marriage as a right or a  privilege. As a right, it constitutes a straightforward Fourteenth Amendment challenge; as a privilege, you need to supplement that with arguments stemming from other clauses, and that's where Comity comes in as privileges are within its purview.

Though, I will agree that the American legal system is a bit of a fuster cluck in this regard since the  Slaughterhouse cases gutted the Comity clause, and the Fourteenth has been used repeatedly to pick up the slack.
 
2013-06-27 01:24:26 PM  

Dr Dreidel: BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.

Dude, if she's older than 3 and unmarried, just rape her. Then, you MUST take her as a wife (but you can't divorce her, either - so there's that).

// note from my attorney: DO NOT RAPE ANYONE. EVER. IN ADDITION TO THE ILLEGALITY OF IT, IT'S A SHIATTY, SHIATTY THING TO DO TO SOMEONE. IT'S ALSO VERY ILLEGAL TO RAPE A CHILD, SO DEFINITELY DON'T DO THAT. BUT REALLY 'RAPE', AS A CLASS OF ACTIONS, IS NOW AND FOREVER OFF THE TABLE. CAPISCE?


I'm currently engaged in a little bit of a debate/argument with a guy who basically is the living personification of a Christian Tea Party supporter. He outright said "Dignity is earned, not conferred," and he intimated that there is no difference between scorning an act of rape and scorning a rapist. I barely resisted calling him a hateful bigot.
 
2013-06-27 01:29:14 PM  

grumpfuff: Dr Dreidel: BMulligan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Serious Black: 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.

The Bible thumpers having conniptions over teh ghey probably do support these ideas.

You might think so, but when I offered to purchase my neighbor's 12-year old daughter for eight goats and a fine brood mare, I got shut down cold.

Dude, if she's older than 3 and unmarried, just rape her. Then, you MUST take her as a wife (but you can't divorce her, either - so there's that).

// note from my attorney: DO NOT RAPE ANYONE. EVER. IN ADDITION TO THE ILLEGALITY OF IT, IT'S A SHIATTY, SHIATTY THING TO DO TO SOMEONE. IT'S ALSO VERY ILLEGAL TO RAPE A CHILD, SO DEFINITELY DON'T DO THAT. BUT REALLY 'RAPE', AS A CLASS OF ACTIONS, IS NOW AND FOREVER OFF THE TABLE. CAPISCE?


The sad thing is, there are people who actually need a note like that saying, ya know, rape is really bad.


Wait.  Are we talking "rape" rape, or rape rape?
 
2013-06-27 01:29:28 PM  

hubiestubert: Lando Lincoln: dinch: Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Bible also says that we shouldn't kill each other, and yet, we have laws allowing us to do just that.

Jesus constantly spoke out about people not being greedy and yet there are many laws in our nation that allow us to be as greedy as we damn well please.

But for some weird reason we have to keep the gays from being married because THAT would really piss God off.

Well, there's a LOT in Leviticus that God should be pissed at us about...


I'm commenting so I can easily refer to this list at a later date. Even more proof of the biblical hypocrisy. Love it.
 
2013-06-27 01:29:32 PM  

qorkfiend: except for creating that "equality between the states" argument out of whole cloth


...which I actually support. Equal Protection can and damn well  should extend to state governments, especially when a fundamental right such as voting comes in and damned especially in such a landscape that sees state governments infringing upon the right to vote wholesale.

Again, not that Congress can or would do it, the Court's opinion establishes clear precedent for nationalizing election and ballot law, at least in terms of federal elections. Which it god damn ought well to do.
 
2013-06-27 01:32:14 PM  

palelizard: Wait.  Are we talking "rape" rape, or rape rape?


I think it means rape-rape, rape. The rapiest kind of rape.
 
2013-06-27 01:33:23 PM  
I have a friend who considers himself a small government libertarian and supports the Tea Party. Since Tea Party representatives are going gonzo about finding new ways to ban gay marriage, i asked him how is banning gay marriage a small-government, low-tax, libertarian philosophy? Anyone want to take a stab at an answer?
 
2013-06-27 01:36:40 PM  

king of vegas: I have a friend who considers himself a small government libertarian and supports the Tea Party. Since Tea Party representatives are going gonzo about finding new ways to ban gay marriage, i asked him how is banning gay marriage a small-government, low-tax, libertarian philosophy? Anyone want to take a stab at an answer?


Is your friend religious?  Don't God's rules take precedent over human rules?
 
2013-06-27 01:38:03 PM  
This could also have been titled 'Republicans throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get to enforce their bigotry on others' with the exact same accuracy, Subby.
 
2013-06-27 01:38:13 PM  
And that will be declared unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-27 01:38:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: palelizard: Wait.  Are we talking "rape" rape, or rape rape?

I think it means rape-rape, rape. The rapiest kind of rape.


From what I recall from the text, a man need only "seduce" an unmarried woman for them to be married*. So while the OP had a girl aged 12 (and thus having any kind of sex with her would necessarily be rape), the Bible doesn't specify "forcible/forced" sex or "unwanted" or "legitimate" or whatever term-du-jour.

*and it's not that simple - IIRC, he still has to pay off her family as he would if they were non-rapily married (and yes, that feels gross to type)
 
2013-06-27 01:40:03 PM  

that bosnian sniper: palelizard: Wait.  Are we talking "rape" rape, or rape rape?

I think it means rape-rape, rape. The rapiest kind of rape.


I thought that was "triple-dog rape."
 
2013-06-27 01:40:12 PM  
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

I know it won't make any difference, but can SOMEone sit her down and explain that we are talking about the LEGAL Institution of Matrimony, not the Religious Institution of Marriage? I'm pretty sure that estate tax law was not created by hand of God, and I know for a fact that any legislative session can undo it, since it was NOT what a holy God instituted.
 
2013-06-27 01:41:13 PM  

Serious Black: I'm currently engaged in a little bit of a debate/argument with a guy who basically is the living personification of a Christian Tea Party supporter. He outright said "Dignity is earned, not conferred," and he intimated that there is no difference between scorning an act of rape and scorning a rapist. I barely resisted calling him a hateful bigot.


That dignity thing doesn't sound particularly Christian, but aside from that, I'm confused.  What's wrong with hating both rapists and acts of rape in general?
 
2013-06-27 01:41:41 PM  

that bosnian sniper: palelizard: Wait.  Are we talking "rape" rape, or rape rape?

I think it means rape-rape, rape. The rapiest kind of rape.


Clearly, we're talking about legitimate rape. Duh.
 
2013-06-27 01:43:06 PM  

palelizard: Serious Black: I'm currently engaged in a little bit of a debate/argument with a guy who basically is the living personification of a Christian Tea Party supporter. He outright said "Dignity is earned, not conferred," and he intimated that there is no difference between scorning an act of rape and scorning a rapist. I barely resisted calling him a hateful bigot.

That dignity thing doesn't sound particularly Christian, but aside from that, I'm confused.  What's wrong with hating both rapists and acts of rape in general?


I think it violates the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing that I hear very frequently wrt Christians and how we should treat gay people.
 
2013-06-27 01:46:57 PM  

palelizard: clkeagle: Nope - it would just:
1. Force single parents to marry their baby mamas/baby daddies, even if they were raped by an immediate family member. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
2. Mandate that widows/widowers remarry within three months of spousal death. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
3. Pardon all currently incarcerated mothers and fathers - even serial rapists and killers. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.

It would be tremendously awesome-sauce if a Dem introduced a bill using that wording.  The sad thing is I'm not sure everyone would get the joke.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh look, a Libertarian defending the rights of a group of people trying to restrict the rights of another group of people.

Color me shocked. But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

Dude, this is why people around here don't have any respect for your philosophy. For some reason, Libertarian notions of "freedom" always seem to cut against those who yearn for it the most.

One doesn't have to agree with the Republican agenda to think they've got the right to have one.  If they want to spew their vile hate-filled garbage and try and fail over and over again to change things, the system in place is the appropriate venue to do so.  It's stupid, it takes time and effort away from real issues, and the world they desire is against our Constitutional values, but they're allowed to have those opinions, and they're allowed to use the system to try and make them reality.  We just have to remember they're evil, and crush them at every turn--but also from within the system.

Just because we don't agree with their philosophy does not mean we have the right to prevent them from voicing it.


Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.
 
2013-06-27 01:50:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

I know it won't make any difference, but can SOMEone sit her down and explain that we are talking about the LEGAL Institution of Matrimony, not the Religious Institution of Marriage? I'm pretty sure that estate tax law was not created by hand of God, and I know for a fact that any legislative session can undo it, since it was NOT what a holy God instituted.


And I'm pretty sure that they purposefully confuse the two (legal versus religious) for political gain.
 
2013-06-27 01:53:00 PM  

Serious Black: palelizard: Serious Black: I'm currently engaged in a little bit of a debate/argument with a guy who basically is the living personification of a Christian Tea Party supporter. He outright said "Dignity is earned, not conferred," and he intimated that there is no difference between scorning an act of rape and scorning a rapist. I barely resisted calling him a hateful bigot.

That dignity thing doesn't sound particularly Christian, but aside from that, I'm confused.  What's wrong with hating both rapists and acts of rape in general?

I think it violates the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing that I hear very frequently wrt Christians and how we should treat gay people.


Ah.  Yeah, I can see how that would violate the principle.
 
2013-06-27 01:57:35 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order. The ironic thing is that you libertarians are supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action.


Depends on how you see it. (Probably also on what you mean by 'libertarian'.) A constitutional amendment is the appropriate and designated venue, because it assures a consensus of the public on the issue, and requires that each state ratify it.. (As opposed to a cadre of motivated individuals (judges or congress) or an executive arbitrarily edicting it).

Keep in mind that libertarians are not opposed to government, only that it be minimal and restrained. They also tend to have a healthy respect for the democratically expressed will of the people, and structurally, and amendment certainly meets those requirements. It's nearly impossible to do and requires overwhelming consensus.

Lastly, it is exceedingly unlikely it will ever happen, so allowing someone to try is perfectly acceptable. If they are wrong, and cannot convince nearly everyone, it will fail anyway. If it were to somehow succeed, it would be an unequivocal expression of democracy in action. Libertarians also like the rules to be the rules.
 
2013-06-27 02:00:34 PM  

lockers: flondrix: Three Crooked Squirrels: I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.

Some of the more conservative states have tried that angle as well...

You do realize that no-fault divorce was only enacted in 2010 in the well known conservative bastion of New York, well after the rest of the country did.


But at least they allowed you to get divorced.  Google "covenant marriage".
 
2013-06-27 02:04:01 PM  

Pincy: BojanglesPaladin: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

I know it won't make any difference, but can SOMEone sit her down and explain that we are talking about the LEGAL Institution of Matrimony, not the Religious Institution of Marriage? I'm pretty sure that estate tax law was not created by hand of God, and I know for a fact that any legislative session can undo it, since it was NOT what a holy God instituted.

And I'm pretty sure that they purposefully confuse the two (legal versus religious) for political gain.


No doubt. I think both sides do it, but the religious right (mistakenly) cast the defense of marriage as a matter of religion. This plays directly into the intentional confusion of the other side who argue that people are foisting a religion on them.

Both are utterly wrong. The Legal Institution has long, long, long been completely *ahem* divorced from the Religious Institution. They really have nothing in common. A church can marry anyone they want, regardless of the legal marriage definition, and regardless of the legal marriage definition, a church cannot be compelled to marry anyone.
 
2013-06-27 02:09:13 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.


You've got some anger issues, I think.  I'm not sure which interests of the powerful you think I was defending, or how you misinterpreted the part where I said "They're evil and we have to stop them" to mean I wasn't decrying the Republicans.

I also didn't say anything about anyone being an anarchist.  However, your statement:

But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

could be construed that you felt working within the system was inappropriate aka not "perfectly okay", and that maybe they didn't have a right to try to change things because they're bad people.  If you meant it was okay within the system but morally reprehensible, no problem, I misunderstood you and thought you were implying the former rationale over the latter.
 
2013-06-27 02:12:51 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.


Dayum. Most eloquent analysis of the faux-Lbertarians on Fark I've ever seen.
 
2013-06-27 03:08:46 PM  

palelizard: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.

You've got some anger issues, I think.


Close. I've got hypocrisy issues, actually. I don't like it.

I'm not sure which interests of the powerful you think I was defending

Then why did you even bother to respond?  Again, no one was trying to say that the GOP didn't have the legal authority to do this. People are condemning them for the content of their speech and actions, not for their right to speak and act.   The entire thread has been about how they arein the wrong to do this, which is a moral argument, not a legal one.

It's the fact that you felt compelled to jump in and instruct us that they have the authority to do so that's standing out against your supposed libertarianism. You are going out of your way to defend their right to suppress the rights of others, even though no one is, in fact, actually trying to say that they should prevented from raising an Amendment or from saying whatever they like to say.

But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

could be construed that you felt working within the system was inappropriate aka not "perfectly okay", and that maybe they didn't have a right to try to change things because they're bad people.  If you meant it was okay within the system but morally reprehensible, no problem, I misunderstood you and thought you were implying the former rationale over the latter.


Because it is NOT perfectly okay. It's legal, but it's wrong.  I would question your own reading comprehension if you "construe" the phrase "perfectly okay" to be in any sense synonymous with the concept of legal but wrong which is neither perfect nor okay.

If you are really and truly opposed to what they are trying to do, then stop trying to act like the people in this group are attempting to suppress their rights and join us in condemning what libertarians are supposed to be against: actual attempts to suppress the rights of others.
 
2013-06-27 03:22:50 PM  

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

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


This.  When my crazy father-in-law starts talking about secession and revolution, I tell him that in civilized societies we attempt to change the laws with which we disagree.  When something is found to be unconstitutional, proposing to change that constitution is the next reasonable step.
 
2013-06-27 03:23:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lastly, it is exceedingly unlikely it will ever happen, so allowing someone to try is perfectly acceptable. If they are wrong, and cannot convince nearly everyone, it will fail anyway. If it were to somehow succeed, it would be an unequivocal expression of democracy in action. Libertarians also like the rules to be the rules.


I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that. But if the libertarian philosophy is to be meaningful, it can't just be, "Hey, whatever majorities vote for is cool with us!"

Libertarians always try to drum up support by insisting that they support the expansion of civil liberties as a principle. It's why we constantly hear about libertarians arguing for the legalization of drugs, prostitution, and firearms and and why they consistently condemn efforts -- including perfectly democratic efforts -- to restrict any of those things.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if the topic were a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment that we wouldn't have droves upon droves of libertarians insisting that such an effort was tantamount to tyranny by the majority? Do you expect me to further believe that would would be any libertarians around going out of their way to remind everyone that Congress has a legal right to raise such an Amendment?

Of course not, and we all know it.

The subject of gay rights is a  perfect opportunity for libertarians to make a case for the rights of individuals to marry and even I, a critic of libertarianism, think that I could construct an argument that would be consistent with libertarian beliefs, but it just seems hard to find those libertarian voices when they are so desperately needed.

Instead, we get digressions into Constitutional procedures and statements suggesting that it's more important to respect the rights of a majority to restrict the civil rights of a minority as long as it's done democraticallythan it is to say that such restrictions are fundamentally wrong and should be opposed on principle.

As is often the case, libertarianism in practice just doesn't seem to measure up to how good it looks on paper.
 
2013-06-27 03:23:28 PM  

EyeballKid: "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


Dude. Be careful.
/or, ya know, dudess.

That's an alleged quote that hasn't been conclusively attributed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I had cause to examine it myself at one time.
 
2013-06-27 03:32:44 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that.


Yeah. I stopped reading after "you guys". Apparently I was not explicit enough with my use of "they".

I get you have a mad-on here. I don't know why and I can't bring myself to care all that much. I'm sorry I made an observation that a constitutional amendment was consistent with libertarian thought as I understand it. You want to argue about how eeeevil everyone who doesn't fully support any means in a full-throated effort to get gay marriage everywhere is, and how libertarians are hypocrites and probably dumb too.

So carry on. I'm sure you will change minds everywhere with your polemic screeds.
 
2013-06-27 03:33:39 PM  

Flab: 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?


Um, some unedumacated folks think those are two completely different gods.
Not only that, but the usual tea party foaming at the mouth fear of teh mooslim.

Thus, teh point.

Hammered rather neatly too.
 
2013-06-27 03:48:56 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The subject of gay rights is a  perfect opportunity for libertarians to make a case for the rights of individuals to marry and even I, a critic of libertarianism, think that I could construct an argument that would be consistent with libertarian beliefs, but it just seems hard to find those libertarian voices when they are so desperately needed.


I thought the usual libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all.
 
2013-06-27 03:58:07 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: I thought the usual libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all.


In the extreme, I believe so. At a minimum, it is a matter for the states.

This seems to be their default position on pretty much EVERY issue :)
 
2013-06-27 04:00:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that.

Yeah. I stopped reading after "you guys". Apparently I was not explicit enough with my use of "they".

I get you have a mad-on here. I don't know why and I can't bring myself to care all that much. I'm sorry I made an observation that a constitutional amendment was consistent with libertarian thought as I understand it. You want to argue about how eeeevil everyone who doesn't fully support any means in a full-throated effort to get gay marriage everywhere is, and how libertarians are hypocrites and probably dumb too.

So carry on. I'm sure you will change minds everywhere with your polemic screeds.


There's a difference between supporting the means and supporting the ends. Amending the Constitution is a perfectly legitimate tactic to achieve policy goals that I'm not sure any American would oppose. Using a legitimate tactic to semi-permanently strip one class of people of their dignity and freedom is not a supportable end for any libertarian I know of.
 
2013-06-27 04:17:35 PM  

Serious Black: Using a legitimate tactic to semi-permanently strip one class of people of their dignity and freedom is not a supportable end for any libertarian I know of.


Thank you for sharing your opinion.
 
2013-06-27 05:53:36 PM  

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


Are they going to show pictures of straight families that were ruined by gay marriage? Seriously, no state or country that's allowed it has had horror stories. If anything, the spread of gay marriage will cause gay people to seem less scary to the average person who never really runs into leather daddies and glittered twinks.
 
2013-06-27 11:30:11 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Empty Matchbook: Car_Ramrod: 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.

No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!

It's like when people worry, "But HOW am I going to EXPLAIN this to my CHILDREN?!"

Just tell them, "Some boys like girls, some like boys. Some girls like boys, some like girls." PROBLEM SOLVED. How hard is that? Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?


That was LITERALLY how my parents explained it to me when I was little: THE SAME WAY MARGE TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO HOMER (which made that joke SO much funnier to me). "Some men prefer the company of other men, and some women prefer the company of other women. And there's nothing wrong with it." Made TOTAL sense to me at the time! And oh, it STILL DOES.
 
2013-06-28 01:06:26 AM  

BMulligan: Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.


Dragging them would more be requiring that those states themselves register gay marriages... which they won't have to (for a while yet); this is "merely" requiring that they cross-recognize... which will, I admit, have about the same effect once Nevada shifts stance a little. Meanwhile, marriage tourism diverts to Niagra Falls.

Contrariwise, there's the question of how the Public Policy exception would interact with such a law; Pacific Employers Insurance v Industrial Accident may be one of the major overview cases.

Nohow, I don't have a law degree.

Serious Black: A number of Republicans have proposed and voted for legislation that would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits regardless of what state issued them. There's a LOT more variance in who can get a CCH and what training they have to go through to get it than there is in getting a marriage license.


Or for that matter, a driver's license... though I'm not sure what the basis is on those.

BMulligan: Except that there is substantial precedent to the contrary. Consider that no court ever required a state to recognize the validity of interracial marriage (prior to Loving).

DarwiOdrade: The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.


However, so far as I can turn up, Congress had not legislated to mandate such recognition, either.

DarwiOdrade: I was just pointing out that FFC might not be the remedy.


By itself alone, the FF+C section is clearly insufficient, especially with DOMA section 2 still around and acting in the exact opposite direction (prescribing an "effect thereof" of "bupkis"). However, given (hypothetical) particular legislation from Congress, the combination might be a remedy.
 
Displayed 268 of 268 comments

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