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.

(LA Times)   Prop 8 supporters file suit to stop gay marriages in California. Won't take no, no, and aw hell no for an answer   (latimes.com) divider line 195
    More: Fail, California Courts, California, marriage licenses, same-sex marriages, California Supreme Court, 9th Circuit, Alameda, trial courts  
•       •       •

3423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2013 at 6:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-12 05:23:56 PM  
I bet they think California should have been ordered to defend Prop 8.
 
2013-07-12 05:46:57 PM  
Let it go....

Wonder what they'll try next?  I don't see them giving up.
 
2013-07-12 05:48:00 PM  
Gays have the same rights as you fundie assholes. You'll get over it
 
2013-07-12 06:15:36 PM  
No, no, you idiots!  The good kind of butthurt!
 
2013-07-12 06:16:10 PM  
These people are Gov. Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.  That's how history will remember them.
 
2013-07-12 06:28:14 PM  

nekom: These people are Gov. Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.  That's how history will remember them.


Well, maybe if Wallace had been 5 years old at the time...

/besides, if they had any guts, they'd try to push another initiative
//I'm betting they'd get radically different results this time
 
2013-07-12 06:38:35 PM  
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-07-12 06:40:18 PM  
The thought of homosexuals marrying other homosexuals really seems to upset these people.

[grumpycat_good.jpg]
 
2013-07-12 06:47:11 PM  
These regressive bigots are too farking stupid to realize they've lost this battle...
 
2013-07-12 06:47:49 PM  
Keep farking that chicken, boys.
 
2013-07-12 06:48:54 PM  
They're trying to prevent the Obamamarriages from happening in California and wish them well. I hope other states will uphold their constitutional bans to prevent Obamamarriages from happening there too. Obamamarriages is just more regulations on the people, government, businesses, and stifles religious freedom.
 
2013-07-12 06:49:20 PM  
I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

The only fix I can see is when the executive opts to step aside like that have an immediate special election to appoint a Special Attorney General empowered with representing the State on that one issue.
 
2013-07-12 06:50:13 PM  
Prop 8 supporters?  You mean the exact same people that the USSC just recently ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry had absolutely no standing to defend the law in court?  How will this new suit not be dismissed immediately?
 
2013-07-12 06:50:13 PM  
So, these people have nothing better to do than put their noses where someone puts their genitalia? For what reason?
 
2013-07-12 06:50:28 PM  
As a show of support I've been having gay sex every time same-sex couples are attacked by bullshiat like this.

Granted, the sex is great but I'm getting exhausted.
 
2013-07-12 06:51:47 PM  

Fjornir: I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.


As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]
 
2013-07-12 06:53:36 PM  

sabreWulf07: Prop 8 supporters?  You mean the exact same people that the USSC just recently ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry had absolutely no standing to defend the law in court?  How will this new suit not be dismissed immediately?


on top of that, they seem to be asking a state court to review a federal court ruling. generally that goes the other way
 
2013-07-12 06:54:41 PM  

Funk Brothers: They're trying to prevent the Obamamarriages from happening in California and wish them well. I hope other states will uphold their constitutional bans to prevent Obamamarriages from happening there too. Obamamarriages is just more regulations on the people, government, businesses, and stifles religious freedom.


So, you just stick 'Obama' in front of a word, and it becomes bad?  Sounds like fun!
Obamasnails!
Obamatails!
Obamanthropomorphisms!
Obamadiarama!
 
2013-07-12 06:55:05 PM  

Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]


I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.
 
2013-07-12 06:57:33 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


You don't have to. The Supreme Court already did it for you.
 
2013-07-12 06:57:45 PM  
I support these people wasting their money and allowing us to continue to laugh at them.
 
2013-07-12 06:59:13 PM  
You'd think these folks would support gay marriage since it will send us down that slippery slope that'll lead to all this chicken farking being legalized.
 
2013-07-12 07:00:21 PM  

Fjornir: I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.


When democracy becomes tyranny of the majority, someone needs to be able to step in and rectify things.
 
2013-07-12 07:00:30 PM  

Fjornir: I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.


The initiative process is a joke. Voters have consistently required the state to spend more money and collect fewer taxes -- and then they blame the politicians for not balancing the books!

If we're going to have an initiative system, it needs to have checks and balances to correct for voter's unrelenting stupidity.
 
2013-07-12 07:00:45 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


Initiatives are stupid and bad.  They're essentially holding a hand-count to determine major policies that should be addressed and resolved by the state government itself.

California's populous has abused the process to the point of having a budget crises pretty much every year because they cut their own taxes and still demand the services granted to a high standard of living.

The sooner the 'initiative process' gets completely gutted and defanged, the sooner we can force the state governments to do their jobs.
 
2013-07-12 07:01:19 PM  

tinyarena: Funk Brothers: They're trying to prevent the Obamamarriages from happening in California and wish them well. I hope other states will uphold their constitutional bans to prevent Obamamarriages from happening there too. Obamamarriages is just more regulations on the people, government, businesses, and stifles religious freedom.

So, you just stick 'Obama' in front of a word, and it becomes bad?  Sounds like fun!
Obamasnails!
Obamatails!
Obamanthropomorphisms!
Obamadiarama!


If Conservatives start using the term Obamamarriage instead of gay marriage or same-sex marriage, it might change the opinions of Republicans and Independents who are in favor of same-same marriage. They realized that Obama supports same-sex marriage and they quickly rejoin the big tent. This could convince young Republicans who support same-sex marriage to instead oppose it. If Obama's approval ratings dip over time and the Conservative media uses Obamamarriage instead of same-sex marriage, states should as Ohio and Michigan (where a majority support same-sex marriage) uphold the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman.
 
2013-07-12 07:01:30 PM  

Fjornir: I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

The only fix I can see is when the executive opts to step aside like that have an immediate special election to appoint a Special Attorney General empowered with representing the State on that one issue.


Important caveat: They didn't have standing because gay marriage had nothing to do with them.
 
2013-07-12 07:02:18 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


As someone that lives in CA, I can honestly say that the pants-on-head retarded initiative process this state has needs to be tossed out the damn window, whether or not it results in things I like. I would rather the things I like be put through a process that offers more legitimacy than a petition and a simple majority of whomever decides to vote that day. Creating state laws with simple majorities of the voters that happened to show up on that particular election day is the reason California got into the budget mess it is in.
 
2013-07-12 07:02:39 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


If you support initiatives that try to strip people of their inherent civil rights, you get what you get. Just because some group pulls an initiative out of their ass and gets it on a ballot, doesn't mean it's constitutional. We shouldn't be encouraging curtailing of civil rights through initiatives - sorry.
 
2013-07-12 07:09:43 PM  

Fjornir: I'm happy with the outcome but I am not at all wild with the implications of the executive being able to say, "no, tough shiat, I'm not defending this" and then no one having standing. This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.


It's called "the tripartite system", and it's been the mainstream form of republic practiced in the United States since the late 18th century.
 
2013-07-12 07:09:44 PM  

Urbn: If you support initiatives that try to strip people of their inherent civil rights,


I do not, sir. Quite the opposite. When the R74 petition to block Washington's gay marriage law was circulating I took part in the, "Decline to Sign" group canvassing and lobbying. When it made the ballot I helped out on getting it upheld. I think Prop 8 is a terrible discriminatory law and I wish it had been struck down on Equal Protection grounds or some way  otherthan the standing argument.
 
2013-07-12 07:12:22 PM  

Urbn: Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.

If you support initiatives that try to strip people of their inherent civil rights, you get what you get. Just because some group pulls an initiative out of their ass and gets it on a ballot, doesn't mean it's constitutional. We shouldn't be encouraging curtailing of civil rights through initiatives - sorry.


This.  Some time in the near future the "initiative" being proposed is "white people don't get the vote".  Please stop trying to do unto others before they do unto you, as it only gives them ideas.
 
2013-07-12 07:13:07 PM  
These people seem to prefer bestiality to humans humping humans.

Bawwk.
 
2013-07-12 07:15:13 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


If the initiative goes against the state constitution, I'd hope they wouldn't enforce it.

Besides- gay marriage was suspended during this whole time- and the initiative was declared unconstitutional.

Done
 
2013-07-12 07:16:31 PM  
If they want to spend their money tilting at windmills, who am I to argue with them?
 
2013-07-12 07:17:31 PM  
Populous ≠ Populace

Together, we can fix this.
 
2013-07-12 07:19:03 PM  

Funk Brothers: They're trying to prevent the Obamamarriages from happening in California and wish them well. I hope other states will uphold their constitutional bans to prevent Obamamarriages from happening there too. Obamamarriages is just more regulations on the people, government, businesses, and stifles religious freedom.


This just lowered my IQ, by reading it.  From the South, I'm guessing, so no surprise there...
 
2013-07-12 07:21:33 PM  
s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-07-12 07:21:47 PM  
It would be nice if these people were as interested in fixing local/state/national economy
 
2013-07-12 07:23:19 PM  

Fjornir: Urbn: If you support initiatives that try to strip people of their inherent civil rights,

I do not, sir. Quite the opposite. When the R74 petition to block Washington's gay marriage law was circulating I took part in the, "Decline to Sign" group canvassing and lobbying. When it made the ballot I helped out on getting it upheld. I think Prop 8 is a terrible discriminatory law and I wish it had been struck down on Equal Protection grounds or some way  otherthan the standing argument.


It already had been struck down on equal protection grounds. The bigots didn't have standing to appeal that decision because, well, that's kind of how standing works.
 
2013-07-12 07:27:21 PM  
But... why call it Obamamarriage? I mean, Obamarriage is a smaller portmanteau, slightly more clever, and still gets the message across!
Rousing the rabble is all well and good, but show some pride in your work, you Philistines.
 
2013-07-12 07:30:07 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: If they want to spend their money tilting at windmills, who am I to argue with them?


My only problem would be them tying up valuable court resources. With all the vacant judgeships these days I doubt those folks have a lot of free time.
 
2013-07-12 07:31:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Fjornir: Urbn: If you support initiatives that try to strip people of their inherent civil rights,

I do not, sir. Quite the opposite. When the R74 petition to block Washington's gay marriage law was circulating I took part in the, "Decline to Sign" group canvassing and lobbying. When it made the ballot I helped out on getting it upheld. I think Prop 8 is a terrible discriminatory law and I wish it had been struck down on Equal Protection grounds or some way  otherthan the standing argument.

It already had been struck down on equal protection grounds. The bigots didn't have standing to appeal that decision because, well, that's kind of how standing works.


Yeah. The District Court held that it failed the rational basis test. The rational basis test requires every law to have some legitimate government interest behind it. Not anything serious or compelling, Just something. Prop 8 didn't even have that.
 
2013-07-12 07:31:18 PM  
If these people just died, the world would be a much better place.
 
2013-07-12 07:37:52 PM  

Fjornir: Forty-Two:  This really pulls the teeth out of the initiative process.

As someone else has already posted:

[grumpycat_good.jpg]

I'm not comfortable giving anyone a pocket veto over an initiative. Next time it might be an initiative I support.


In addition to all the other stuff people have dogpiled on you, the initiative process, in addition to being an exceedingly crappy way to craft policy, is also an effective means for monied interests to write their own laws. Current campaign finance laws, in the country and in the State of California, are useless, and things like paid signature gatherers are allowed to exist. The only people who are able to get something onto the ballot and then shepherd it through a media market comprising about 40 million people are the wealthy and powerful, which is the exact opposite of the intention of the Progressive movement in creating the initiative process.

The sooner this idiotic process is eliminated, and the sooner that Californians (and everyone else) decide to start holding themselves accountable for electing the people they claim to hate so much, the better.
 
2013-07-12 07:39:29 PM  

Pfft!: If these people just died, the world would be a much better place.


True fact.
 
2013-07-12 07:39:38 PM  

SordidEuphemism: But... why call it Obamamarriage? I mean, Obamarriage is a smaller portmanteau, slightly more clever, and still gets the message across!
Rousing the rabble is all well and good, but show some pride in your work, you Philistines.


Thanks for the suggestion. I might as well start using Obamarriage instead of Obamamarriage from now on when there are threads concerning same-sex marriage.
 
2013-07-12 07:41:23 PM  

Funk Brothers: SordidEuphemism: But... why call it Obamamarriage? I mean, Obamarriage is a smaller portmanteau, slightly more clever, and still gets the message across!
Rousing the rabble is all well and good, but show some pride in your work, you Philistines.

Thanks for the suggestion. I might as well start using Obamarriage instead of Obamamarriage from now on when there are threads concerning same-sex marriage.


I'm glad to see I've helped make Fark better in some small way.
 
2013-07-12 07:41:28 PM  

SordidEuphemism: But... why call it Obamamarriage? I mean, Obamarriage is a smaller portmanteau, slightly more clever, and still gets the message across!
Rousing the rabble is all well and good, but show some pride in your work, you Philistines.


But the last a in Obama is pronounced /ə/, and the first a in marriage is pronounced /æ/.
 
2013-07-12 07:42:14 PM  
FTA: If the mother's life is in danger, the bill instructs doctors to try to save the life of the baby during the abortion.

Newsflash:  abortion saves babies' lives!
 
Displayed 50 of 195 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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