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 270
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3994 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (2 years 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 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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