If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

3989 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report