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.

(Buzzfeed)   Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 427
    More: News, United States Constitution, Ohio, James Obergefell, Anne Arundel County, same-sex marriages, death certificates, Rob Nichols, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

19803 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-22 08:59:30 PM
Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?
 
2013-07-22 09:02:41 PM
IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.
 
2013-07-22 09:07:51 PM
It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.
 
2013-07-22 09:09:10 PM

feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.


The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.
 
2013-07-22 09:13:18 PM
needs more ?fapfapfappityfap

;)

Only kidding submitter.
 
2013-07-22 09:13:21 PM
i105.photobucket.com
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.
 
2013-07-22 09:14:51 PM

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


It just takes too long.
 
2013-07-22 09:19:11 PM

dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.


Much too long.
 
2013-07-22 09:21:15 PM

Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.


I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.
 
2013-07-22 09:22:33 PM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


God, trolls let anyone in their club these days.
 
2013-07-22 09:23:21 PM
Ahhh, progress. One state at a time, one country at a time. Sometimes it falters and appears to stall or even reverse. But slowly, inexorably, progress rumbles forward.
 
2013-07-22 09:23:51 PM

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


I'm sure that lots of people got the same pleasure when Louis XIV met his end, they just didn't have to wait for it.
 
2013-07-22 09:30:27 PM

Aarontology: I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


Too true; there is that sadistic satisfaction that I feel when their efforts to spread ignorance goes by the boards.
 
2013-07-22 09:30:43 PM
Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...
 
2013-07-22 09:39:03 PM

ambassador_ahab: feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.

The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.


The case is apparently only 3 days old, hardly time for anything.
 
2013-07-22 09:39:04 PM
This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.
 
2013-07-22 09:44:09 PM

dr_blasto: It just takes too long.


Rwa2play: Much too long.


That's certainly true.   (I admit my sense of time is somewhat skewed.  I think of the bronze age as "new stuff.")

Still, when I was young and not yet fat, gouty, and arthritic, Stonewall was a pretty big deal.  I have to admit that we've made progress, even if not enough yet.  We're moving the right direction, at least.
 
2013-07-22 09:52:44 PM

revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.


But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....
 
2013-07-22 09:56:48 PM
As an Ohio resident and government lawyer, allow me to say,
WOOOHOOOO!
 
2013-07-22 09:59:34 PM

feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.


For a TRO to issue, the court must find the plaintiff likely to prevail. (Yes I am a lawyer who defends TROs regularly)

So it is indeed a BFD.
 
2013-07-22 10:15:38 PM
FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides
 
2013-07-22 10:18:01 PM
... And I know some of those lawyers
 
2013-07-22 10:19:24 PM

doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....


I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.
 
2013-07-22 10:22:49 PM
If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
 
2013-07-22 10:25:26 PM

pootsie: FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides


Just favorited you as Ohio PACER Guy. Hope to see you in the rest of these threads.
 
2013-07-22 10:28:36 PM

mootmah: pootsie: FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides

Just favorited you as Ohio PACER Guy. Hope to see you in the rest of these threads.


LOL, thanks.  Would not be here if Unfreakable had not gifted me one month of TF a short time ago (cuz he liked a song I posted).  Thanks, Unfreakable!
 
2013-07-22 10:34:44 PM
And here are the opening paragraphs of the judge's glorious opinion:

This is not a complicated case. The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.

Throughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise, under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors.

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot ... at least not under the circumstances here.

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."


...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.
 
2013-07-22 10:35:56 PM
My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.
 
2013-07-22 10:39:51 PM

kimwim: My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.


She might be holding out to get married in Massachusetts, so that she and her bride can do a honeymoon on the Cape?
 
2013-07-22 10:47:29 PM

kimwim: My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.

I hope Ohio goes down soon, with many more states to follow, because it's stupid to think that you could be married between 9am and 5pm, in Manhattan, then go home to New Jersey, and not be married. And then go back to work the next morning, and be married again.


Giggity
 
2013-07-22 10:49:54 PM

pootsie: And here are the opening paragraphs of the judge's glorious opinion:

This is not a complicated case. The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.

Throughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise, under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors.

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot ... at least not under the circumstances here.

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-22 11:07:12 PM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


I think there's too much dust in here...
 
2013-07-23 12:02:52 AM

ambassador_ahab: feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.

The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.


That is true, but the standard for a TRO is much different than any other action he could take. It needs to be put in perspective. I don't have a dog in this race so the outcome is really immaterial to me. (although it would be nice to be listed on your spouse's death certificate, I would assume they would prefer it for other less un-alive reasons as well).

I hope they have all their POA's and durable POAs and living wills and things squared away, but I must assume they do if they can hire a jet to fly them to Maryland. Heck I would have kicked in twenty bucks so they could have flown somewhere nice to get married.
 
2013-07-23 12:12:24 AM

feckingmorons: That is true, but the standard for a TRO is much different than any other action he could take. It needs to be put in perspective.


My perspective, as a lawyer who often defends TROs, is that it is often the whole ballgame.  You may pull it out after one is granted (in which case you look like a hero), but that is rather rare.  A federal judge is highly unlikely to be turned once granting initial relief like this

This is the judge's finding as to the likelihood prong of the TRO (actually PI, but whatever) test:

Even if the classification of same-sex couples legally married in other states is reviewed under the least demanding rational basis test, this Court on this record cannot find a rational basis for the Ohio provisions discriminating against lawful, out-of-state same sex marriages that is not related to the impermissible expression of disapproval of same-sex married couples.

Consequently, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits.


As to perspective, this decision is limited to the facts at issue and the relief is only granted to the two plaintiffs.  But the water just breached the dam in Ohio.
 
2013-07-23 12:16:03 AM
Hopefully this will lead to something in Ohio. My home state needs to join the right side of history and et rid of this ban. If a judge has to tell them to be adults then so be it.
 
2013-07-23 12:20:14 AM
Those activist judges are at
 
2013-07-23 12:21:13 AM
Hmm, iPhone + alcohol = cryptic trolling. Lets try that again.

Those activist judges are at it again, huh?
 
2013-07-23 12:38:54 AM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


What a beautiful story. I can't believe that anybody could watch that and say that what those two men are doing is sinful, or destructive to society, or would "make God angry". Yet of course there are far too many people who hold that view.
 
2013-07-23 12:47:46 AM
You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!
 
2013-07-23 12:48:41 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

See. EVEN THE ANIMALS CRY OUT TO JESUS FOR FORGIVENESS!
 
2013-07-23 12:52:46 AM
If you are having access or connection issues, check out the video of the couple here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-arthur-jim-obergefell- ga y-wedding_n_3598627.html
 
2013-07-23 01:12:52 AM
So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?
 
2013-07-23 01:27:19 AM
Wow, a judge from a typically conservative state getting this right, a buzzfeed link that has actual content, and a comment section under the article that isn't filled with hateful bile?  It's like Christmas in July.
 
2013-07-23 01:37:32 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?



i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-23 01:41:08 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Wow, a judge from a typically conservative state getting this right, a buzzfeed link that has actual content, and a comment section under the article that isn't filled with hateful bile?  It's like Christmas in July.


Yeah I clicked on comments expecting all kinds of derp and was pleasantly surprised. Even the one dissenter was not incredibly insulting, just wrong.
 
2013-07-23 01:41:09 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Wow, a judge from a typically conservative state getting this right, a buzzfeed link that has actual content, and a comment section under the article that isn't filled with hateful bile?  It's like Christmas in July.


I think it is actually Christmas in Australia, isn't it? Or Googly Moogly day, or whatever the hell they call it down there. That place, I swear.
 
2013-07-23 01:44:06 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


A cat is fine too.
 
2013-07-23 01:54:07 AM
Right Wing heads are going to be exploding tomorrow.
 
2013-07-23 01:54:19 AM
The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.
 
2013-07-23 01:54:36 AM

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
 
2013-07-23 01:55:04 AM
Can this go where I think it can go? DRTFA.
/Good to hear all the same.
//It's past time
 
2013-07-23 01:56:15 AM

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


^^^^ right up there, this.
 
2013-07-23 01:57:24 AM

Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.


Civil rights should never be put to a vote.
 
2013-07-23 01:57:48 AM
The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS
 
2013-07-23 02:00:34 AM
Oh, great. Gay marriage and free weed for anyone who is or isn't a documented citizen if this country.

/no, seriously, please?
 
2013-07-23 02:02:07 AM
In before WHARRRRRRRRRGARBL...
 
2013-07-23 02:02:39 AM

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


Say that with a straight face to a 100% native American. If you can find one. Go Redskins.
 
2013-07-23 02:03:08 AM

hardinparamedic: You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!


I love that people say that their god is punishing everyone for gays and abortions and whatnot. He should be punishing his followers for being bigots, anti-poor, racist, self serving, greedy, ignorant, selfish, lying about their god, killing in name of their god, abusive because of their god, and other sins that are actually in the Bible.
 
2013-07-23 02:03:36 AM

make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?


Im late to this, but, if i may- this is kinda cool and everyone wants the damn green on a story like this.
I was off buying airplanes in megap city something but i have been known to submit and fake spell check because i counted my keystrokes, and been off. Sometimes- a green feels good. You farking made it- you made at least 2 people smile or chortle or groan. Any of them or any combination works, but that depends.
So- grats, Subby- good on ya for winning the race to the green text !
 
2013-07-23 02:05:05 AM

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


Turtles and cats, apparently.
 
2013-07-23 02:05:45 AM
there are unfortunately, but realistically, some things the constitution just does not cover.
trying to make some things a constitutional battle simply begs for bullshiat interpretations.

are laws regulating genetic engineering constitutional?

some things you just have to figure out with common sense.
society itself must agree, or at least the majority.

this is where we are at. the consensus is turning the corner.
this has nothing to do with the constitution
 
2013-07-23 02:06:00 AM
tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


what would repeating bears talk about ? a bad bug season or not enough flowers to eat ?
 
2013-07-23 02:06:51 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


Same for someone pushing their religious beliefs as laws for everyone. It should never be put to a vote.
 
2013-07-23 02:07:42 AM
By the way- Maggie- I look at that and it seems crass and not at all what i meant to convey. oops
I was going for a play on me not posting pics, but SQUIRREL!
 
2013-07-23 02:11:26 AM
Arigato godzaimas, Ohio!
 
2013-07-23 02:12:39 AM

alienated: By the way- Maggie- I look at that and it seems crass and not at all what i meant to convey. oops
I was going for a play on me not posting pics, but SQUIRREL!


Squirrel?
farm8.staticflickr.com
No worries : )
 
2013-07-23 02:13:20 AM

alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.
 
2013-07-23 02:14:08 AM
Well done judge whose name I didn't bother looking up.
 
2013-07-23 02:15:50 AM

Zeppelininthesky: tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

Same for someone pushing their religious beliefs as laws for everyone. It should never be put to a vote.


We had constitution for that but lot's of things got passed that were all religious beliefs. We'll see.
 
2013-07-23 02:15:52 AM

ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.


Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.
 
2013-07-23 02:18:08 AM

ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.


And oddly, in a way, they did set a precedent. Does Walker, who is retired, have any friends in other states within the 9th ? He just might . i will wait and see.
 
2013-07-23 02:18:11 AM

pootsie: Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.

Let me repeat that last delicious bite for you ...

Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, "the state-law shoe" has now dropped in Ohio. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 77-78.


Oh, that is beautiful. I can just imagine Scalia raging away when he finds out that his dissent was cited in this case.

I've got to say, ever since the Perry and Windsor decisions, I've been unable to get the least bit upset about people's anti-gay bigotry because it just feels like the impotent rage of those who know they've lost but refuse to admit it. Instead of getting upset or angry or depressed, I just laugh. Not that there isn't still a lot of work to be done, but it's all over but the shouting.
 
2013-07-23 02:19:37 AM
For those wanting info on this judge, he's only been on the bench since 2010, but was recommended by a bipartisan commission that Obama agreed with and was confirmed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate.  He was previously a magistrate who get elected by the judges and before that an elected judge as a Democrat but had previously ran and lost a judicial position running as a Republican making the change about the time Bubba got elected.
 
2013-07-23 02:20:07 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


Go back and read the article slowly, looking up the big words in a dictionary. It might help.
 
2013-07-23 02:20:11 AM
But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww
 
2013-07-23 02:21:55 AM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


That's some comedy gold right there.

/pocket ninja still does it better
//slashies
 
2013-07-23 02:22:12 AM

kimwim: My sister and sister-in-law got married in a church in Illinois 5 years ago, still waiting to get married legally. We've invited them repeatedly to come to CT to get married, I don't know what they're waiting for.


Have they sued in federal court?
Illinois not recognizing their religious marriage is clearly a violation of their first amendment rights.
Illinois can not accept some religious sacraments and not others.

I cant imagine that we have not seen many more of these cases by now.
And more importantly, the war is over, the fat lady has song and all we have to do now is wait for the dust to settle.

I wonder, what's next?
 
2013-07-23 02:22:25 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.


Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.
 
2013-07-23 02:22:41 AM

ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.


Yeah, but Judge Walker is a homo so his opinion shouldn't be allowed to matter. Or something like that. I'm a little rusty on my NOM talking points.
 
2013-07-23 02:23:38 AM

hardinparamedic: You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!


Not sure if satire or trolling...
 
2013-07-23 02:24:01 AM
Look, I know it's Buzzfeed and not real journalism, but when there's a story with major political implications, maybe your readers want to hear more about things like the court's reasons for making their decision and less about the personal lives of two random people we don't give a fark about?

I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick).  Kind of an important part of the story.
 
2013-07-23 02:24:24 AM

SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww


The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.
 
2013-07-23 02:26:13 AM

rynthetyn: ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.

Yeah, but Judge Walker is a homo so his opinion shouldn't be allowed to matter. Or something like that. I'm a little rusty on my NOM talking points.


Oh you. JPG : )
 
2013-07-23 02:27:29 AM
Needs a HERO tag.
 
2013-07-23 02:28:04 AM

Jim_Callahan: I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick). Kind of an important part of the story.


If it's really a TRO then neither is the case for now.

tl; dr.
 
2013-07-23 02:28:09 AM

rynthetyn: ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.

Yeah, but Judge Walker is a homo so his opinion shouldn't be allowed to matter. Or something like that. I'm a little rusty on my NOM talking points.


And i never did hear if your friend of the court paper made it in. i have no quick comeback to judge walker is a homo
 
2013-07-23 02:29:56 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.


The hell you say! What next? Negroes can live anywhere they want? Marry white wimmen? VOTE?

You and your gays are going to open the floodgates.
 
2013-07-23 02:30:12 AM

Jim_Callahan: Look, I know it's Buzzfeed and not real journalism, but when there's a story with major political implications, maybe your readers want to hear more about things like the court's reasons for making their decision and less about the personal lives of two random people we don't give a fark about?

I mean, there's a big difference between striking this on full faith and credit grounds (which higher courts have already rejected, see the most recent gay marriage ruling and concealed carry licenses) and striking it on equal protection grounds (which has some potential to actually stick).  Kind of an important part of the story.


The relevant part was already quoted upthread, but the Judge justified it that because Ohio has a precedent of honoring out-of-state marriages that wouldn't be possible in Ohio (such as marriages between first cousins and marriages involving minors) that homosexual marriages should be afforded the same rights.

Basically he said that if Ohio is going to accept as valid any marriage performed as valid in another state, they have to accept them all.
 
2013-07-23 02:32:13 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.


I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.
 
2013-07-23 02:32:47 AM
Does this mean I have to marry a man?
 
2013-07-23 02:32:53 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

What is a license. Discuss.

 
2013-07-23 02:33:36 AM

mediablitz: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

The hell you say! What next? Negroes can live anywhere they want? Marry white wimmen? VOTE?

You and your gays are going to open the floodgates.


Yes I know it's all use liberal progressives ruining everything .
/I my mind I typed that in a very southern accent : )
 
2013-07-23 02:33:54 AM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine (powered with the stem cells of aborted white babies) to go back to the 12th Century and impersonate Henry II to insert the idea of binding precedent into the common law system. He even called it "stare decisis", which is probably heathen-turban-wearing-camel-jockey-brown-people-speak for "Force gay Nazi commie Muslim sharia law marriages on everyone".

Just study it out.
 
2013-07-23 02:34:53 AM

Jenna Tellya: Arigato godzaimas, Ohio!


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-23 02:35:20 AM

GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.


I think it'll be sooner than you think.  A few more crushing defeats for the GOP in elections and they'll realize that the average citizen in the US is far more socially liberal than they currently believe.  If they stop ostracizing their own party members who stand up for civil liberties there will really be nothing stopping the movement.
 
2013-07-23 02:35:48 AM

mediablitz: The hell you say! What next? Negroes can live anywhere they want? Marry white wimmen? VOTE?


Those successful and attractive african americans think they own this country!
 
2013-07-23 02:36:02 AM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu all the emotions.
 
2013-07-23 02:36:05 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


You're supposed to marry two girls if you're a guy, or a guy and a girl if you're a girl.
 
2013-07-23 02:37:49 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-23 02:37:52 AM

twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine


OK, you had me at "B-Rock".
 
2013-07-23 02:38:02 AM

revrendjim: doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....

I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.


Means you're still a POW in a Turkish prison?
 
2013-07-23 02:38:11 AM

TuteTibiImperes: GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.

I think it'll be sooner than you think.  A few more crushing defeats for the GOP in elections and they'll realize that the average citizen in the US is far more socially liberal than they currently believe.  If they stop ostracizing their own party members who stand up for civil liberties there will really be nothing stopping the movement.


Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
 
2013-07-23 02:38:38 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


No dude.

From how this was explained to me is that marriage licenses are covered under the full faith and credit clause because they are judicial records. The FF&C clause has been interpreted as meaning that all judicial records and judgements will be recognized by all states. This is still up to debate with gay marriage because some states constitutions only recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But as for CCW permits, those aren't judicial records or judgements, they have been determined to be a matter of reciprocity were each individual state to make agreements on rather or not to recognize each others permits. Drivers licenses are actually a matter of reciprocity also
 
2013-07-23 02:38:47 AM

GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.


I hope we do see it and soon I don't like this some states thing we we're supposed to be the United States, and well the current situation isn't tenable.
 
2013-07-23 02:38:55 AM

Government Fromage: Does this mean I have to marry a man?


No, but it does mean you'll have to milk santorum from them, because you asked.
 
2013-07-23 02:39:22 AM

Government Fromage: Does this mean I have to marry a man?


Yes, and also practice Sharia law and bathe your feet in a muslim footbath.
 
2013-07-23 02:41:42 AM

twat_waffle: ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.

Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine (powered with the stem cells of aborted white babies) to go back to the 12th Century and impersonate Henry II to insert the idea of binding precedent into the common law system. He even called it "stare decisis", which is probably heathen-turban-wearing-camel-jockey-brown-people-speak for "Force gay Nazi commie Muslim sharia law marriages on everyone".

Just study it out.


Errr... I'm gonna cite Poe's Law...
 
2013-07-23 02:42:29 AM

Prof. Frink: revrendjim: doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....

I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.

Means you're still a POW in a Turkish prison?


Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
 
2013-07-23 02:46:57 AM

Government Fromage: Does this mean I have to marry a man?


Yep.
And from now on, when he says, "Suck my dick", you better say, "You want me to lick your balls, Daddy?"

/Sorry, been watching The Shield again
//Best line in the whole show.
 
2013-07-23 02:49:11 AM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?
 
2013-07-23 02:51:20 AM

alienated: rynthetyn: ambassador_ahab: alienated: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

This is exactly what Judge Walker wrote in district court when it first struck down Prop. 8 in California.  That was the essence of his opinion:  marriage is a fundamental right, and you can't take those away with a vote.  Tyranny of the majority doesn't work in our country.

Yeah, but Judge Walker is a homo so his opinion shouldn't be allowed to matter. Or something like that. I'm a little rusty on my NOM talking points.

And i never did hear if your friend of the court paper made it in. i have no quick comeback to judge walker is a homo


As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.
 
2013-07-23 02:55:21 AM

rynthetyn: As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.


Mayhaps. I would like to think that it did, and i never saw the final version. Cheers
 
2013-07-23 02:56:51 AM
Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.
 
2013-07-23 02:57:27 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: GloomCookie613: tinfoil-hat maggie: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


/ewwwwww

The hope is we'll be able to live wherever we want in the states and have equal rights.

I hope to be around to see that day. Stories like this give me hope that I will. I'd like to be able to dance with the grooms at my best friend's wedding reception someday.

I hope we do see it and soon I don't like this some states thing we we're supposed to be the United States, and well the current situation isn't tenable.


I don't see the patchwork solution lasting for very long. Even though Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, tossing Section 3 while keeping Section 2 creates such a legal clusterfark that it's only a matter of time before Section 2 gets found unconstitutional as well. Once DOMA goes away altogether, we're ripe for a constitutional challenge of the whole shebang.
 
2013-07-23 02:58:53 AM

davidphogan: How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?


Because Jeebus, AKA the standard modern argument for discrimination.
 
2013-07-23 03:01:46 AM

revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.


You know it feels good to be alive.
 
2013-07-23 03:01:51 AM

TemperedEdge: davidphogan: How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?

Because Jeebus, AKA the standard modern argument for discrimination.


I figure the best proof that Jesus isn't real is that he hasn't come back to kick the ass of people who claim to be working on his behalf.
 
2013-07-23 03:02:29 AM

davidphogan: I figure the best proof that Jesus isn't real is that he hasn't come back to kick the ass of people who claim to be working on his behalf.


I want to make a shirt out of that.
 
2013-07-23 03:04:50 AM

alienated: rynthetyn: As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.

Mayhaps. I would like to think that it did, and i never saw the final version. Cheers


If anybody's interested,  this is the brief I worked on. I was one of the coauthors on the Child Rights Project Survey that's cited heavily in section 3 of the brief.
 
2013-07-23 03:05:08 AM

davidphogan: pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?


Jesus.
Does that answer your question?
 
2013-07-23 03:05:23 AM

ambassador_ahab: davidphogan: I figure the best proof that Jesus isn't real is that he hasn't come back to kick the ass of people who claim to be working on his behalf.

I want to make a shirt out of that.


Jesus save me... from your followers.
 
2013-07-23 03:05:40 AM
*scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?
 
2013-07-23 03:06:07 AM

Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.


One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.
 
2013-07-23 03:07:07 AM
No, you're a marriage.
 
2013-07-23 03:07:17 AM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


What the hell is wrong with you?  Are you a major shareholder in Kleenex or something?
 
2013-07-23 03:08:04 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.


Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.
 
2013-07-23 03:09:05 AM

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


There's no profit in homophobia. (that sounds like it should be one of the Rules Of Acquisition).

Drug prohibition is the real money maker, which is why it will last.
 
2013-07-23 03:10:02 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


You're supposed to marry a GAY turtle, obviously.
 
2013-07-23 03:11:55 AM

hardinparamedic: Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?

A cat is fine too.


Ok, fine, but for the love of God keep your filthy, perverted hands off the ducks.
 
2013-07-23 03:12:26 AM
i44.tinypic.com

Now we make marriage
 
2013-07-23 03:12:29 AM

Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?


TG thread at the bottom of the main page have no idea if it's still going haven't looked lately.
I think maybe the trolls gave up in this kind of thread?
/Granted there is the Laramie one below this but it only had a few, wtf moments.
 
2013-07-23 03:14:21 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

Turtles and cats, apparently.


No, because then people would start giving birth to hybrid cat-turtles, and that path leads only to madness.

/curtles?
 
2013-07-23 03:14:50 AM

Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.


Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )
 
2013-07-23 03:16:05 AM

ongbok: The FF&C clause has been interpreted as meaning that all judicial records and judgements will be recognized by all 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. "

That is amazingly unambiguous really. no-one could rationally describe a state marriage registration as not being a 'public act, record or judicial proceeding'.

While that clause does not make a state perform marriages it does make it recognise them. How someone can be a hardcore defender of the exact language of one amendment and yet not want to not accept this clause of the main constitution is unfathomable.
 
2013-07-23 03:16:07 AM

alienated: tinfoil-hat maggie: Mad_Radhu: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Civil rights should never be put to a vote.

what would repeating bears talk about ? a bad bug season or not enough flowers to eat ?


Their own arms, and their right to leave them undressed?
 
2013-07-23 03:18:34 AM
Was the HERO tag in the can?
 
2013-07-23 03:18:40 AM

ambassador_ahab: Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.

Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.


Sure.  That's what the Gay Turtle Mafia WANTS you to think.  Wake up, sheeple!

/summon xkcd
 
2013-07-23 03:20:48 AM
Tick tock, motherfarkers.
 
2013-07-23 03:21:23 AM
Rachel Maddow is going to be insufferable tomorrow.
 
2013-07-23 03:21:45 AM

twat_waffle: ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.

Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine (powered with the stem cells of aborted white babies) to go back to the 12th Century and impersonate Henry II to insert the idea of binding precedent into the common law system. He even called it "stare decisis", which is probably heathen-turban-wearing-camel-jockey-brown-people-speak for "Force gay Nazi commie Muslim sharia law marriages on everyone".


api.ning.com
What gay Nazi commie Muslim sharia law marriage might look like.
 
2013-07-23 03:23:12 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )


There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.

th01.deviantart.net

/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!
 
2013-07-23 03:23:31 AM

rynthetyn: I don't see the patchwork solution lasting for very long. Even though Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, tossing Section 3 while keeping Section 2 creates such a legal clusterfark that it's only a matter of time before Section 2 gets found unconstitutional as well. Once DOMA goes away altogether, we're ripe for a constitutional challenge of the whole shebang.


ryn, I have full faith that you'll be loving the outcome of this.
It's inevitable.
 
2013-07-23 03:24:22 AM

Harry_Seldon: Rachel Maddow is going to be insufferable awesome tomorrow.


FTFY.
 
2013-07-23 03:26:14 AM

Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?


There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.
 
2013-07-23 03:28:16 AM
"Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution"


What's a "Constitution"?

Sounds antiquated. Like something quaint, mildly interesting and maybe kinda cute, but totally irrelevant.

This is 2013, after all.
 
2013-07-23 03:29:52 AM

ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.


Word, they got their fodder for the day, they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast.
 
2013-07-23 03:30:12 AM

ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.


Laramie? Are people still derping about Matthew Shepard?
 
2013-07-23 03:32:08 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


Both states issue marriage licenses, do they not?
 
2013-07-23 03:33:36 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Word, they got their fodder for the day, they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast.


Lulz.
 
2013-07-23 03:34:38 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.


Mags,
That was a Fox comedy, but certainly nightmare material.
Hitman? Another Fox nightmare.
Here, have some nice chamomile tea.
This will turn out well. It may take some time, but it will turn out well.
 
2013-07-23 03:36:18 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast.

they get done masturbating, because sex is evil (but in that super-secret way so Jeebus can't see, because it's also evil and stuff.)

That raises an interesting question.  Is masturbation also "sodomy" or does it have to involve another person to be "sodomy"?

/Proud sodomite either way.
 
2013-07-23 03:37:30 AM

rynthetyn: ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.

Laramie? Are people still derping about Matthew Shepard?


Story
Fark thread.

It's about a play about the event, but yes, it concerns Shepard's death.  the story is worth reading if only for the quote from the principal.
 
2013-07-23 03:37:30 AM
Am I the only one that's tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion and womens rights, not because they aren't worthy, but they distract us from taking back the 30% of GDP that's being bogarted by the banking classes.  It's wrose than people think when you consider that economic growth has been sub par since we allowed the finance and insurance 'industries' to reap and pillage.
 
2013-07-23 03:41:09 AM

ambassador_ahab: tinfoil-hat maggie: they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast. they get done masturbating, because sex is evil (but in that super-secret way so Jeebus can't see, because it's also evil and stuff.)

That raises an interesting question.  Is masturbation also "sodomy" or does it have to involve another person to be "sodomy"?

/Proud sodomite either way.


If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is "onanism."
 
2013-07-23 03:41:15 AM

gibbon1: Am I the only one that's tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion and womens rights, not because they aren't worthy, but they distract us from taking back the 30% of GDP that's being bogarted by the banking classes.  It's wrose than people think when you consider that economic growth has been sub par since we allowed the finance and insurance 'industries' to reap and pillage.


Mmmkay, financial concerns are important too, but that's not what this particular article is about.  I mean, all these issues are happening at the same time, so they're all relevant.
 
2013-07-23 03:43:10 AM

ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is


Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?
 
2013-07-23 03:51:33 AM

ciberido: rynthetyn: ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.

Laramie? Are people still derping about Matthew Shepard?

Story
Fark thread.

It's about a play about the event, but yes, it concerns Shepard's death.  the story is worth reading if only for the quote from the principal.


Geez, it's been more than a decade and a half since his murder and people are still biatching about the play? And how moronic can the principle be to use that metaphor?
 
2013-07-23 03:52:17 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: ciberido: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.

Word, they got their fodder for the day, they'll pick up on this after their moms wake them up up for breakfast.


Thanks you guys. I didn't have the stomach for digging through the threads to find the bigots. Thought I'd see some of them here but it's all rainbows.
 
2013-07-23 03:56:07 AM
Looks like the Supreme Court will have another one to deal with next term.
 
2013-07-23 04:02:00 AM

ambassador_ahab: ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is

Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?


Dammit. No.
Onan had a responsibility to give his brother an heir. It's called Levirate marriage.
Instead, he had his fun with the widow, but pulled out, spilling his seed on the ground.
Because of that, he was struck dead.
Onanism is coitus interruptus.
Male masturbation? Take a shower, wash any affected clothing and bedding, and wait for sunset.
Sexytime? Take a shower together, wash any affected clothing and bedding, and watch the sun go down.
/Bonus: Nobody sleeps on the wet spot.
 
2013-07-23 04:02:00 AM

Gyrfalcon: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.


I was just looking at Wikipedia's timeline of LGBT history. When I was born in 1980, you could literally count the number of openly gay elected officials on one hand. Virtually no one of any import was out back then and we were still six years away from the Supreme Court finding Georgia's sodomy laws constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. There were no openly gay federal judges until I was 14.

We may very well make it from Stonewall to complete equality in under 50 years, which is a blink of an eye in the timelines of massive social change.
 
2013-07-23 04:07:05 AM

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


JESUS
 
2013-07-23 04:11:26 AM

rynthetyn: Gyrfalcon: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.

I was just looking at Wikipedia's timeline of LGBT history. When I was born in 1980, you could literally count the number of openly gay elected officials on one hand. Virtually no one of any import was out back then and we were still six years away from the Supreme Court finding Georgia's sodomy laws constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. There were no openly gay federal judges until I was 14.

We may very well make it from Stonewall to complete equality in under 50 years, which is a blink of an eye in the timelines of massive social change.


I know I said it in another thread but yea, even though we have a long way to go we have come so far in such a (relatively)short time it is amazing.
 
2013-07-23 04:14:08 AM

bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS


Oh,, now I'm hoping that was a joke but well if not please describe the passages where Jesus talks about such things : )
 
2013-07-23 04:17:22 AM

pxlboy: hardinparamedic: You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!

Not sure if satire or trolling...


Honestly neither am I.  It is funny how some people's honest opinions can be mistaken for the Jester's performance art.
 
2013-07-23 04:17:48 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


The problem is Ohio only recognizes certain marriage licenses performed elsewhere, like between first cousins. That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.
 
2013-07-23 04:18:51 AM

rynthetyn: As far as the brief I worked on goes, one of the main focuses was on how the inability of their parents to marry is harmful to the children of LGBT parents. That was one of the things that Kennedy touched on in the Windsor opinion (and a point that Scalia flipped out on in his dissent). There's no real way of knowing whether that brief helped sway Kennedy or not, but who knows, maybe it had some small part to play in convincing Kennedy that DOMA hurt children by delegitimizing their families. The brief I worked on was the only one that specifically focused on that issue, but I still can't wrap my head around the possibility that something I worked on might have had even the smallest bit of influence in a major constitutional case.


... especially since the premise is so ludicrous!
 
2013-07-23 04:19:00 AM

gibbon1: Am I the only one that's tired of hearing about gay marriage and abortion and womens rights, not because they aren't worthy, but they distract us from taking back the 30% of GDP that's being bogarted by the banking classes.  It's wrose than people think when you consider that economic growth has been sub par since we allowed the finance and insurance 'industries' to reap and pillage.


Monkey, I have a coworker who spewed crap like this prior to the 2012 election. He is a republican. After going off on how liberals distract the people from important economics issues by bringing up all the gay rights and abortion shiat I asked him, "so republicans should give in to the liberals on social issues and get more votes so they can win and fix the economy?"

His reply was 'of course not and then some trailing off'.

You say they are worthy, but yet you want them cast aside as issues? You contradict yourself, just like my coworker. What he and you mean is 'why can't everyone do what I want on social issues so we only get divided on this one area' and frankly that is ridiculous in a representative democracy.
 
2013-07-23 04:19:00 AM
Good.  How many more states are there to go?
 
2013-07-23 04:20:36 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with the US? The sooner it goes full Detroit, the better. Then they can reset and start over.
 
2013-07-23 04:24:11 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: Gyrfalcon: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

One person's lifetime? Holy crap, Loving v. Virginia has been in MY lifetime, how much faster can social mores change? Given the glacial pace of the court system, this is like watching one of those time-lapse films of a star exploding or something. I mean, I understand that people think "yesterday" would be much too late for this kind of thing to happen; but honestly, things have to take SOME time.

I was just looking at Wikipedia's timeline of LGBT history. When I was born in 1980, you could literally count the number of openly gay elected officials on one hand. Virtually no one of any import was out back then and we were still six years away from the Supreme Court finding Georgia's sodomy laws constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick. There were no openly gay federal judges until I was 14.

We may very well make it from Stonewall to complete equality in under 50 years, which is a blink of an eye in the timelines of massive social change.

I know I said it in another thread but yea, even though we have a long way to go we have come so far in such a (relatively)short time it is amazing.



It's crazy thinking of all the things I take for granted today that teenage me would have never thought possible if I'd have realized I was gay back then.
 
2013-07-23 04:35:32 AM

rynthetyn: It's crazy thinking of all the things I take for granted today that teenage me would have never thought possible if I'd have realized I was gay back then.


We've come along way, that's for sure.
/Yea, I almost said "baby" to mimic the old Virginia Slim ads but I didn't wanna sound patronizing.
 
2013-07-23 04:35:48 AM
oh ha ha ha  everything on Fark is so funny.  oh ha ha ha ha ha
 
2013-07-23 04:38:32 AM

pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p



What these people went through to get what so many people take for granted is simultaneously disgusting and heroic.
 
2013-07-23 04:41:11 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS

Oh,, now I'm hoping that was a joke but well if not please describe the passages where Jesus talks about such things : )


Yes that is a joke, but you know some people will use "God's will" (being whatever suits them) as an argument to anything - and they instantly believe that they have decisively won.
 
2013-07-23 04:47:36 AM

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


Of course the funnier part is that because they have put bigotry into the center of their religion, when their bigotry gets defeated it makes their version of God a loser too.
 
2013-07-23 05:20:51 AM
greece.greekreporter.com
 
2013-07-23 05:22:13 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS

Oh,, now I'm hoping that was a joke but well if not please describe the passages where Jesus talks about such things : )


Do you think these people give a wet shiat what Jesus said? Do you think they've bothered to even read their own holy book? Please.
 
2013-07-23 05:50:33 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: rynthetyn: It's crazy thinking of all the things I take for granted today that teenage me would have never thought possible if I'd have realized I was gay back then.

We've come along way, that's for sure.
/Yea, I almost said "baby" to mimic the old Virginia Slim ads but I didn't wanna sound patronizing.


And there's still a long way* to go.
/I've yet to find a cover or duet by Alison Krause that I don't like.
//*לא־ישא גוי אל־גוי חרב ולא־ילמדו עוד מלחמה
 
2013-07-23 06:08:11 AM

ambassador_ahab: feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.

The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.


Unless he didn't want to be the one answering a question that will piss off absolutely someone to the point of murder.
 
2013-07-23 06:17:22 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


all three, plus forced abortions
 
2013-07-23 06:20:25 AM

make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?


Butt-hurt?
 
2013-07-23 06:26:41 AM

Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.



/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!


I used to have a reoccurring dream where I would be on a terrace high in the mountains with an old Chineese man. I would then go through the house and pass through a series of rooms that were rather like movie sets. One was a blackjack room with tuxedos and cocktail waitresses, one was a rough bar with random fighting. In each room there would be a person who I identified with.
 
2013-07-23 06:35:13 AM

TheDarkSaintOfGin: Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?

all three, plus forced abortions


And become a Nazi-communist-islamo-black-supremacist running dog.
 
2013-07-23 06:51:22 AM
Good. Enjoy your first tentative steps into the 20th Century, Ohio... Wait'll you get to the 21st Century. It's wild, man.

No, but seriously, another domino is about to fall and that's very good news. The bigots and ideologues will continue to lose these battles and that makes me smile.
 
2013-07-23 06:53:11 AM

revrendjim: doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....

I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.


I'll third you guys on the Ohio hate----but it IS a BFD.  Ohio (suck though it does) is a bellwhether and swing state---if this holds up in OH, the rest of the nation won't be far behind.
 
2013-07-23 06:56:29 AM
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I dunno, seems pretty farking clear to me.
 
2013-07-23 06:58:54 AM

HMS_Blinkin: revrendjim: doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....

I spent five years of my life in Ohio. Eighth grade through high school graduation. The fact that I left for the Army two weeks later and have never again set foot in the state again means something.

I'll third you guys on the Ohio hate----but it IS a BFD.  Ohio (suck though it does) is a bellwhether and swing state---if this holds up in OH, the rest of the nation won't be far behind.


C'mon, Ohio is so bad, it leads the nation in natives who wanted out so bad they escaped into space.
 
2013-07-23 07:04:09 AM
hubiestubert:  if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state.


Except that's not true.  This one(1) judge says it's true for Ohio, but that's not what the Supreme Court said.

This will likely go back to the Supreme Court... again.  Ohio doesn't want this.
 
2013-07-23 07:05:59 AM
The decision was good. Calling out Scalia was great.

State's rights: we're taking it back.
 
2013-07-23 07:07:05 AM
It seems that most people here didn't read tfa.
 
2013-07-23 07:07:35 AM

Neighborhood Watch: hubiestubert:  if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state.


Except that's not true.  This one(1) judge says it's true for Ohio, but that's not what the Supreme Court said.

This will likely go back to the Supreme Court... again.  Ohio doesn't want this.


Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.
 
2013-07-23 07:11:58 AM

Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.


That may have been a joke, but it isn't even close to what he said...

Note: "Ohio's bans on recognizing same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio.."

So what he said was that Ohio has some categories of folks that aren't allowed to be married in Ohio.  However, Ohio will recognize those marriages if they were legal in the jurisdiction where they were performed.  Ohio tried to make an exception for same sex marriages, treating them differently than other marriages, and that is why this will not stand.  So if Ohio had refused to recognize 1st cousin opposite sex marriages performed in Kentucky (I don't know, just reaching for an example) then there would have to be a different justification.
 
2013-07-23 07:12:33 AM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-07-23 07:13:18 AM

Jenna Tellya: Arigato godzaimas, Ohio!


I see what you did there.
 
2013-07-23 07:13:19 AM

Neighborhood Watch: hubiestubert:  if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state.


Except that's not true.  This one(1) judge says it's true for Ohio, but that's not what the Supreme Court said.
This will likely go back to the Supreme Court... again.  Ohio doesn't want this.


No. A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. And a few rich guys (and organizations) from outside of Ohio don't want this. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.

/5 guys screaming are louder than 100 people reading the paper.
 
2013-07-23 07:14:41 AM

gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.


Constitution of the United States of America,
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.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.
 
2013-07-23 07:16:03 AM

gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.



I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?
 
2013-07-23 07:16:13 AM

SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


IIRC, Ohio contains the second- or third-largest gay community in the country.

The problem with Ohio is that it's small, dense pockets of sanity surrounded by a bazillion acres where corn and derp are grown.
 
2013-07-23 07:18:28 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


Dude, 12 hours after the recent DOMA ruling, men in black suits arrived at my house and forcibly gay-married me to some guy named Bruce. And Bruce is a top. It's been a bad month for me.
 
2013-07-23 07:19:24 AM

Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.

[th01.deviantart.net image 850x533]

/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!


You;re supposed to link it.
 
2013-07-23 07:19:46 AM

KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.



They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.
 
2013-07-23 07:22:35 AM
Wow. Someone in this thread actually took that post seriously.

Not sure if shocked or sad.
 
2013-07-23 07:30:21 AM
mike_d85:
I used to have a reoccurring dream where I would be on a terrace high in the mountains with an old Chineese man. I would then go through the house and pass through a series of rooms that were rather like movie sets. One was a blackjack room with tuxedos and cocktail waitresses, one was a rough bar with random fighting. In each room there would be a person who I identified with.

The Chinaman is not the issue here, dude.
 
2013-07-23 07:33:06 AM

FormlessOne: twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine

OK, you had me at "B-Rock".


"Now, B-Rock says this. He's going to take your ban on same-sex marriage.... shine it up real nice.... turn that sumbiatch sidewys, and stick straight up Ohio's candy ass!"

"If you SMEEEELLLLLLLLLL LAALALALALALAAAAAAAAA.... WHAT B-ROCK.... IS.... COOKIN'!"
 
2013-07-23 07:36:07 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.
 
2013-07-23 07:38:33 AM

ambassador_ahab: Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.

Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.


But without the divorce it would be Polygamy!
 
2013-07-23 07:40:19 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention. Hopefully before too much real damage is done.
 
2013-07-23 07:40:20 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


A majority of people who happen to vote at that one vote. In NC, they tacked on the constitutional amendment vote with the Republican primary. Surprisingly enough, a majority of Republicans voted during that election, even though Republicans don't even make up a plurality of registered voters in NC.
 
2013-07-23 07:40:47 AM
I woke up with a turtle in the bed next to me and a wedding ring on my finger.

I knew something was up.
 
2013-07-23 07:44:15 AM

mike_d85: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.

/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!

I used to have a reoccurring dream where I would be on a terrace high in the mountains with an old Chineese man. I would then go through the house and pass through a series of rooms that were rather like movie sets. One was a blackjack room with tuxedos and cocktail waitresses, one was a rough bar with random fighting. In each room there would be a person who I identified with.


I've had a dream a few times where i was in hell. you know, the catholic version of hell and all that. Except i was one of the demons torturing people.
Those were the nights i didn't sleep any longer after waking up.

/probably need therapy, only can't afford it.
 
2013-07-23 07:48:41 AM
Why gay marriage should even be news anymore is beyond me.  It's roughly analogous to 'Today, the Earth rotated'.

/One of my best friends died of ALS, the same as one of these guys - it's a horrible, horrible way to go
 
2013-07-23 07:52:15 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.

Wiki

We are going to be one of the last to break.  It will not happen by internal forces, due to the difficulty in reversing constitutional amendments in this state.  It will require some sort of federal action (protected class, reversing DOMA, etc.).

Gays shouldn't feel singled-out though!  Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights.  We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.
 
2013-07-23 07:54:37 AM

bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS


My gardener doesn't care.
 
2013-07-23 07:55:53 AM

Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.



KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.



By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?
 
2013-07-23 07:58:45 AM

hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


I can only speak for Georgia, but I know their constitutional amendment specifically denies reciprocity.  I don't have the time, and I'm sure there are some unemployed history majors, but I would be curious to know how many other issues the states throw reciprocity in the dumpster.
 
2013-07-23 07:59:40 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.


By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?


Or we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.
 
2013-07-23 08:09:41 AM

exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.



When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights
 
2013-07-23 08:12:21 AM

doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....


Name one.
 
2013-07-23 08:12:43 AM

Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?


did you read US v. Windsor?
 
2013-07-23 08:18:29 AM

Kuroshin: Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.

Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.

Wiki

We are going to be one of the last to break.  It will not happen by internal forces, due to the difficulty in reversing constitutional amendments in this state.  It will require some sort of federal action (protected class, reversing DOMA, etc.).

Gays shouldn't feel singled-out though!  Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights.  We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.


Oregon is a beautiful state but the huge support to ban gay marriage was actually a big reason my wife and I didn't move there. We figured if people were that willing to take away the rights of minorities we'd rather not support the local government with our taxes.

In other words, tell your fellow residents to get their shiat together. It is actually costing your state money.
 
2013-07-23 08:18:41 AM

hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .
 
2013-07-23 08:19:37 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


wut
 
2013-07-23 08:20:16 AM

hardinparamedic: You sodomites.


Ezekiel 16:49 - Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

/know he's trolling
//just a reminder
 
2013-07-23 08:22:49 AM

MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .


I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut
 
2013-07-23 08:24:59 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?  Marriage equality is a civil rights issue that social conservatives have already lost, get used to it.
 
2013-07-23 08:25:25 AM

Oxygen_Thief: MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut


It isn't always reciprocal. If you plan to conceal carry across state lines you better be damn sure what states honor your permit.
 
2013-07-23 08:25:51 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?

did you read US v. Windsor?



Reading are hard for Neighborhood Watch. Give the 4 day old sock puppet troll alt a break.
 
2013-07-23 08:26:27 AM

Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?



That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.
 
2013-07-23 08:27:45 AM
Good
 
2013-07-23 08:28:45 AM

Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?



I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?
 
2013-07-23 08:28:50 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Hmm.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Skinner v. Oklahoma,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&v ol=316&invol=535#541" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invo l=190" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely no precedent.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Yup.  Marriage is not a civil right.
 
2013-07-23 08:32:39 AM

Mister Peejay: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?

IIRC, Ohio contains the second- or third-largest gay community in the country.

The problem with Ohio is that it's small, dense pockets of sanity surrounded by a bazillion acres where corn and derp are grown.


Missouri is about the same. Used to be a swing state in presidential elections, until 2008.
 
2013-07-23 08:34:56 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


And the troll gets back to his comfort zone.
 
2013-07-23 08:35:12 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


As long as it's a gay turtle, I think you are okay...
 
2013-07-23 08:35:45 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH, you can site rulings from OK (that nobody paid attention to) all day long.  If the US Supreme Court majority believed that homosexual marriage was a constitutional 'civil right', then it would have said so and struck down DOMA in its entirety and all states would be compelled to honor homosexual marriages, period.

They didn't do that.  I wonder why?  Do you know, oh legal expert?

However, I fully expect that Obama will legalize homosexual marriage on all military bases before leaving office.  Probably on his last day.  That'll throw a wrench into the works!
 
2013-07-23 08:37:19 AM

Carth: Oxygen_Thief: MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut

It isn't always reciprocal. If you plan to conceal carry across state lines you better be damn sure what states honor your permit.


huh interesting thanks
 
2013-07-23 08:38:27 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


People tend to champion the causes that are closest to them. While I'm sure a rainbow parade has sympathies for other minority rights groups, they're marching to raise awareness wrt a specific circumstance. The same goes for Trayvon rallies. Gun shows rallying around personal rights about bearing arms aren't expected to cheer for same sex marriage and racial equality simply because they're championing a civil liberties cause, are they?
 
2013-07-23 08:40:08 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?


That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.


dangerously wrong..So says Scalia.

Scalia "They're doing it to us again you fools!"
 
2013-07-23 08:42:36 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Neighborhood Watch: Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?


That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.

dangerously wrong..So says Scalia.

Scalia "They're doing it to us again you fools!"


Scalia knew his dissent would be cited in this way.  How much fun it must have been for Judge Black to do it.

By the way, did anyone see this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-arthur-jim-obergefell- ga y-wedding_n_3598627.html
 
2013-07-23 08:46:00 AM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


It's got all the marks of a great troll, including the quite brilliant Judiciary-vs-veto fail, but for some reason, it just doesn't sing. You need to do something to juice this up.

And saying "weird ass-rule" won't be the one.
 
2013-07-23 08:46:09 AM

RealFarknMcCoy2: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.


I'll go with McCoy on this one.   Pretty sure the guy who spells it "precident" is not going to be my legal adviser anytime soon.
 
2013-07-23 08:46:18 AM
You mean humans have rights? Wow..who knew
 
2013-07-23 08:47:17 AM
Well, we all knew that a challenge like this would arise.  Time to sort it out.
 
2013-07-23 08:50:33 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


The fark is wrong with you?
 
2013-07-23 08:51:00 AM

Smoking GNU: I've had a dream a few times where i was in hell. you know, the catholic version of hell and all that. Except i was one of the demons torturing people.
Those were the nights i didn't sleep any longer after waking up.

/probably need therapy, only can't afford it.


OK, Dean.

/not obscure
//and I hate my GF for getting me hooked on that show
 
2013-07-23 08:51:51 AM

Biological Ali: Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?

The fark is wrong with you?


How much time do you have?
 
2013-07-23 08:52:45 AM

Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?



Nothing, that I know of.
 
2013-07-23 08:53:11 AM

born_yesterday: I woke up with a turtle in the bed next to me and a wedding ring on my finger.

I knew something was up.


Leave Mitch McConnell out of this...
 
2013-07-23 08:56:19 AM

pootsie: FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides


For those of us without legal backgrounds, what is the difference between a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction? Does one carry more weight than the other?
 
2013-07-23 08:59:24 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?


Nothing, that I know of.


Look, I get that you made this account to troll Trayvon Martin threads - that shtick may have been mildly amusing for maybe a couple minutes or so. But coming into threads like this and pulling this kind of threadjack nonsense? That's pretty farking pathetic. Give it a rest.
 
2013-07-23 09:00:15 AM
Ima gonna keep the turtle as my side-piece.
 
2013-07-23 09:04:29 AM

revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.


Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR
 
2013-07-23 09:06:18 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Civil rights should never be put to a vote.


Every civil rights in the history of any form of the US was put to a vote. Often by white male slave-holders.

To believe otherwise is a profound state of ignorance.
 
2013-07-23 09:08:44 AM

duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR


This issue doesn't have the sheer worldwide impact of the fall of communism, but it's sure as sh*t very important. We're talking about the basic right to enjoy the benefits of the majority, and doing away with the cruel intentions of those who oppose it. In my book, and in Joe Biden's voice, it's a big f*cking deal.
 
2013-07-23 09:08:58 AM
Slowly - rights are being restored to those whose rights were stolen. I'm sorry that it's taken so long my fabulous friends... If it's any consolation .. They're also working on the erosion of my rights.
 
2013-07-23 09:09:21 AM

exatron: That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.


How the fed rules on equal protection is remarkably subjective. Why does a marriage license transfer, but not a gun permit, or a professional certification? It's not like anatomy or gravity is different between Pennsylvania and Ohio.
 
2013-07-23 09:09:23 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Loving v Virginia clearly established that marriage is a civil right.

And do you practice being this dense or is it a natural talent?
 
2013-07-23 09:11:25 AM

duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR


Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.
 
2013-07-23 09:12:28 AM

Kuroshin: Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights. We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.


You must have really hated your black guy.
 
2013-07-23 09:13:04 AM
It sure seems like it's a lot of work pulling these knuckle-dragging losers into the 21st century. If only we could just void the old government and all of its hideous rulings and legislations of the last 200 years and actually write a Constitution that specifically outlaws religion-based legislations and outlines everything the government is allowed to do and everything the government is completely forbidden from doing...

Oh wait, they did, and everyone in power has been ignoring the shiat out of it the whole time.


I would add maybe one provision forbidding a candidate or public servant from taking any gift, present, amenity, or accomodation which exceeds ten dollars in value from any person. Not even farking Christmas presents. Somehow there's this loophole which makes it possible for most of our Congressmen to make millions per year on hundreds of thousands of salary. I'm pretty sure 90 percent of it is open bribery, and we're doing nothing.
 
2013-07-23 09:13:07 AM

Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


1791.
 
2013-07-23 09:16:00 AM
Ay oh.  Way to go, Ohio.
 
2013-07-23 09:16:12 AM

dickfreckle: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

This issue doesn't have the sheer worldwide impact of the fall of communism, but it's sure as sh*t very important. We're talking about the basic right to enjoy the benefits of the majority, and doing away with the cruel intentions of those who oppose it. In my book, and in Joe Biden's voice, it's a big f*cking deal.


Also, I believe the original poster was making comparisons based upon the historic enormity of the issue at hand. I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid. But it was one of those things that define a generation. I'm hoping that allowing gays to enjoy basic liberties I take for granted will be something that happens before I die of lung cancer or liver disease. We're talking about a cultural milestone, here.
 
2013-07-23 09:16:44 AM

cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.


You must be under 20 years old.
 
2013-07-23 09:19:01 AM

Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?


I'm not a homophone, but:
1. Buzzfeed was the source for a legal newsflash?  Really?
2. The headline completely mischaracterizes the decision.

This decision has way more to do with state reciprocity agreements and differences between in-state resident laws versus out-of-state resident laws than it has to do with gay marriage.  It's still perfectly legal for a state to ban gay marriage, they just have to ban recognizing gay marriages from other states too, and it has to valid under their reciprocity agreement.

I may or may not agree with the decision based on some other factors.  For instance, if marriage reciprocity is done on the state level with an agreement between individual states, and the reciprocity agreement between Ohio and (whoever the state was here, CT?) does not prohibit Ohio from not recognizing a subset of married persons from CT, then I would think the judge ruled erroneously.

The judge's logic behind the historicalness is also batshiat retarded.  Here's his logic:

You let your neighbor come over to your backyard BBQ, knowing that smoking weed is acceptable within his house. But smoking weed in your house is not acceptable. Several months pass.  You then find out your neighbor now does crack and meth, and doing such is acceptable within his house.  You're forced to allow him to keep coming over to your backyard BBQ because you historically allowed him to when smoking weed within your house isn't acceptable.

Not the best analogy, and I hate using them, so:  because you historically accepted one (what you view as) morally wrong condition, you must accept all the morally wrong conditions?  That don't make no sense judge.
 
2013-07-23 09:19:30 AM

This text is now purple: exatron: That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.

How the fed rules on equal protection is remarkably subjective. Why does a marriage license transfer, but not a gun permit, or a professional certification? It's not like anatomy or gravity is different between Pennsylvania and Ohio.


Marriage licenses don't transfer per se. The problem is that Ohio recognizes marriage licenses for heterosexual couples from other states, even if that marriage couldn't be performed within Ohio, but doesn't do the same for a gay couple's marriage license.

For example, it's legal for first cousins to marry in New York, but not Ohio, and Ohio will still recognize that marriage license.

Meanwhile, it's also legal for gay couples to marry in New York, but not in Ohio, yet Ohio won't recognize the gay couple's marriage. That arbitrary division is denying gay couples equal protection under the law, and was driven by animus against then.
 
2013-07-23 09:19:54 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.
 
2013-07-23 09:20:34 AM

duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.


Most people under 30 don't really remember the fall of the USSR.
 
2013-07-23 09:22:53 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


Ohio does issue marriage licenses though.

Predicting the supreme court will rule that any state that issues marriage licenses has to respect any other states marriage licenses but doesn't actually compel states to issue gay marriage licenses themselves.

On that note, I would love to see a state stop issuing marriage licenses altogether over this.
 
2013-07-23 09:22:56 AM

dickfreckle: Smoking GNU: I've had a dream a few times where i was in hell. you know, the catholic version of hell and all that. Except i was one of the demons torturing people.
Those were the nights i didn't sleep any longer after waking up.

/probably need therapy, only can't afford it.

OK, Dean.

/not obscure
//and I hate my GF for getting me hooked on that show


Well, damn. I completely forgot about that story arch. Haven't seen that show in a while now.
 
2013-07-23 09:23:14 AM
Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.
 
2013-07-23 09:23:24 AM

duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.


Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.
 
2013-07-23 09:29:07 AM

feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.


Preliminary injunction =/= TRO
 
2013-07-23 09:29:41 AM

cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.

Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.


Oh, I guess all those wars and dead people aren't as important as a few gays having tacky weddings.
 
2013-07-23 09:30:50 AM

exatron: Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights

Loving v Virginia clearly established that marriage is a civil right.

And do you practice being this dense or is it a natural talent?


You're responding to an obvious troll account. Please stop that.
 
2013-07-23 09:31:56 AM

Biological Ali: Neighborhood Watch: Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?


Nothing, that I know of.

Look, I get that you made this account to troll Trayvon Martin threads - that shtick may have been mildly amusing for maybe a couple minutes or so. But coming into threads like this and pulling this kind of threadjack nonsense? That's pretty farking pathetic. Give it a rest.


Good luck with that.  Asses gonna hat.
 
2013-07-23 09:32:09 AM
Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.
 
2013-07-23 09:33:02 AM

EnglishMan: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.

Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.

Oh, I guess all those wars and dead people aren't as important as a few gays having tacky weddings.


Wars over nothing? Yeah. They 100% aren't as important as living up to the concepts laid down by the Constitution.
 
2013-07-23 09:34:03 AM

born_yesterday: Biological Ali: Neighborhood Watch: Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?


Nothing, that I know of.

Look, I get that you made this account to troll Trayvon Martin threads - that shtick may have been mildly amusing for maybe a couple minutes or so. But coming into threads like this and pulling this kind of threadjack nonsense? That's pretty farking pathetic. Give it a rest.

Good luck with that.  Asses gonna hat.


Douches gonna bag.
 
2013-07-23 09:34:55 AM
The only reason govts got involved in "marriage anything" started with the 16th amendment. It's placing taxing structures based on marriage status. It figures that its all about money. Hey all you politicians and lawyers, just leave people alone.
 
2013-07-23 09:35:38 AM
"Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution"

No he didn't.  This does nothing to prevent states from banning gay marriage in their state.  HOWEVER, they must recognize marriages from other states, gay included.
 
2013-07-23 09:37:09 AM

Belias: "Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution"

No he didn't.  This does nothing to prevent states from banning gay marriage in their state.  HOWEVER, they must recognize marriages from other states, gay included.


Which has the effect of neutralizing a ban on gay marriage. The state just ends up losing out on that sweet sweet wedding spending.
 
2013-07-23 09:37:55 AM

dickfreckle: I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid.


The Berlin Wall fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I was stationed in Germany.
On watch.
Talk about mixed feelings ...
 
2013-07-23 09:39:23 AM

dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.


Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise? You can either have "too long" or you can have a bloodbath that ends up giving you something no better (and possibly worse) than what you started with. That's how humans work. Don't like it? Opt out of society, altogether and live as a hermit.
 
2013-07-23 09:40:29 AM

Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?


0/10
 
2013-07-23 09:41:13 AM

SecretAgentWoman: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.


He's correct in that it will change CC law.  But not in the way he is thinking.  Currently, some states have stipulations for accepting CC licenses.  For example, state A's license may be valid in state B, but only if the holder of the state A license is over 21 years of age.  Persons between 18-20 years of age, even with a state A license, can't legally carry in state B because state B prohibits CCing by anyone under 21.

Or:
State A only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+.
State B only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+ and pass proficiency exam.
State A and B sign reciprocity agreement to recognize everyone of either state who has a license from either state.
State A amends law to now issue CC licenses to people who are 18+.

State B then can't ban people between ages of 18-21 with a state A license from carrying.
 
2013-07-23 09:42:30 AM
If it wasn't for the same sex marriage bans all the conservatives wouldn't be able to control themselves and would have harems of gay men!
 
2013-07-23 09:42:50 AM

This text is now purple: exatron: That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.

How the fed rules on equal protection is remarkably subjective. Why does a marriage license transfer, but not a gun permit, or a professional certification? It's not like anatomy or gravity is different between Pennsylvania and Ohio.


Your point that it is different for different things does not discount that marriage is a contract that does fall under equal protection.Right now, the minimum age to marry in Michigan is 18. The minimum age to marry in Mississippi is 21. Yet, two 18-year-olds who marry in Michigan will have their marriage recognized in Mississippi if they move their before their 21st birthdays. Why should this be different if the issue is gender, not age?
 
2013-07-23 09:42:54 AM

jso2897: Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.


I was once on a much smaller, focused messaging board with an extended group of friends.  Anytime someone tried to troll with an alt, the moderator would out them immediately.  "YerMomma is posting from the same IP as BillJohnson".  Put an end to that shiat real quick.  It was even more fun that we could publicly shame the idiot afterwards.

My favorite FARK anecdote (don't know if it's true, gotta believe the poster when they said a mod confirmed this at a FARK party), is that FARK has people argue with their own alts in order to spur debate on an issue.  That's some farked up shiat right there.

Oh, and hurray Maryland!  For standing up and voting for marriage equality in this past election!  Next up:  medical marijuana!
 
2013-07-23 09:45:47 AM

tkwasny: The only reason govts got involved in "marriage anything" started with the 16th amendment. It's placing taxing structures based on marriage status. It figures that its all about money. Hey all you politicians and lawyers, just leave people alone.


Taxation is only one of thirteen major categories of benefits and privileges extended based on marital status.

Other benefits include not having to testify against your spouse in a court of law, access to military housing and commissary privileges when your spouse is on active duty, eligibility for grants, loans, disaster relief, and other areas where combined married income is a factor... the list goes on.
 
2013-07-23 09:46:59 AM

Rhino_man: davidphogan: pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?

Jesus.
Does that answer your question?


Because the following ideas are EVIL and must be eradicated:

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sell all you have and give it to the poor.
As you judge, so shall you be judged.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.


Yes, those, and many other similar sentiments are the most evil things imaginable.
 
2013-07-23 09:47:08 AM

born_yesterday: jso2897: Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.

I was once on a much smaller, focused messaging board with an extended group of friends.  Anytime someone tried to troll with an alt, the moderator would out them immediately.  "YerMomma is posting from the same IP as BillJohnson".  Put an end to that shiat real quick.  It was even more fun that we could publicly shame the idiot afterwards.

My favorite FARK anecdote (don't know if it's true, gotta believe the poster when they said a mod confirmed this at a FARK party), is that FARK has people argue with their own alts in order to spur debate on an issue.  That's some farked up shiat right there.

Oh, and hurray Maryland!  For standing up and voting for marriage equality in this past election!  Next up:  medical marijuana!


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-23 09:48:02 AM
Forcing states that do not allow gay marriage to recognize those marriages when preformed in states where they are allowed was the obvious next step in the march towards equal rights.

I'm kind of surprised that the lawsuit got underway so quickly though. Somebody was on the ball.

However, selecting the people who become the basis of lawsuits destined for the Supreme Court is important, and these guys certainly put a good face on the struggle.

If you study the history of the fight for Civil Rights for blacks in the court system, you'll see that things were accomplished in the same piecemeal manner, winning many decisions over time and not some big decision that happened all at once.
 
2013-07-23 09:48:46 AM

Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10


Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.
 
2013-07-23 09:51:14 AM
Good, now they can have a Flintstones.
 
2013-07-23 09:51:28 AM

Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?


This being Fark, I assume there's always a transgenders thread going on somewhere.
 
2013-07-23 09:51:41 AM

Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.


This is some of the laziest trolling I've seen all month.
 
2013-07-23 09:51:45 AM
Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?
 
2013-07-23 09:52:10 AM

jso2897: Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.


Crap. Because this is an alt, and the original account's password was forgotten long ago.
 
2013-07-23 09:52:52 AM

jso2897: Gimmick accounts should get IP permabanned.


Every time you try to make a gimmick alt to troll, a fist should pop out of the screen and punch you in the face when you try to register.
 
2013-07-23 09:52:59 AM

Silly_Sot: In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started


lol wat.

That's ridiculous.
 
2013-07-23 09:54:43 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Which has the effect of neutralizing a ban on gay marriage.


Not entirely.  Being forced to recognize an out of state marriage as valid is not the same thing as being forced to allow those marriages to occur in your state.  The former is happening now, the latter will likely take many more years to change for many states.  IMHO, the fed will stay out of the latter issue and let the states change over time.
 
2013-07-23 09:55:40 AM

Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.


So you're not a troll but just an idiot.  There is no progressive that believes Pol Pot created a paradise.  Now go back under your bridge.
 
2013-07-23 09:56:48 AM
I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.
 
2013-07-23 09:57:19 AM

make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?


On my screen, the headline reads:

Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution

So, looks like the subby did type it out.  What is your problem?
 
2013-07-23 09:57:20 AM

revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.


Thank you for defeating Gay Communism, Ronald Reagan.
 
2013-07-23 09:57:31 AM

Silly_Sot: Rhino_man: davidphogan: pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?

Jesus.
Does that answer your question?

Because the following ideas are EVIL and must be eradicated:

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sell all you have and give it to the poor.
As you judge, so shall you be judged.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.


Yes, those, and many other similar sentiments are the most evil things imaginable.


Sounds racist.

Oh and
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-23 09:57:35 AM

DeaH: This text is now purple: exatron: That's an equal protection violation, so the only thing getting smacked down will be Ohio's ban.

How the fed rules on equal protection is remarkably subjective. Why does a marriage license transfer, but not a gun permit, or a professional certification? It's not like anatomy or gravity is different between Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Your point that it is different for different things does not discount that marriage is a contract that does fall under equal protection.Right now, the minimum age to marry in Michigan is 18. The minimum age to marry in Mississippi is 21. Yet, two 18-year-olds who marry in Michigan will have their marriage recognized in Mississippi if they move their before their 21st birthdays. Why should this be different if the issue is gender, not age?


Intra-state contracts have less constitutional protection than public acts, which my PE is. That doesn't receive automatic reciprocity. The larger point is that the equal protections clause is a blanket with many holes, through which many things fall which are politically distasteful in one jurisdiction or another. It's also worth considering what else will ride along should you decide to patch all of those holes.
 
2013-07-23 09:57:57 AM

randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.


Never read the 14th Amendment, huh?
 
2013-07-23 09:59:49 AM

Biological Ali: Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.

This is some of the laziest trolling I've seen all month.


Fine, I'll bite.

Calling someone a troll is lazy.

Try a real argument instead of some ad hominem/strawman falacy.
 
2013-07-23 10:00:43 AM

Biological Ali: Silly_Sot: Fart_Machine: Silly_Sot: Golly, then you could to full progressive like Pol Pot did. Didn't he turn Cambodia into a progressive paradise?

0/10

Tell me what you think once you move out of mommy's basement and learn about the real world. In the real world, social change takes time. The alternative is mass murder and ending up no better than you started. Disagree, please show how Pol Pot actually did create a paradise.

This is some of the laziest trolling I've seen all month.


All the trolls are suffering from intense fatigue from all the GAZIGATES lately and can't get it up much.
 
2013-07-23 10:00:51 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Try a real argument instead


I don't think you know how arguments work.
 
2013-07-23 10:01:21 AM

hubiestubert: They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


That's exactly what they want to do.  In fact, back when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he dusted off some old laws from the anti-miscegenation era to attempt to prevent his own state from marrying same sex couples from out of state (every little bit helps, I guess).
 
2013-07-23 10:03:42 AM

randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.


The Lee v. Grant decision of 1865 put an end to concept of "states rights".
 
2013-07-23 10:03:50 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Fine, I'll bite.

Calling someone a troll is lazy.

Try a real argument instead of some ad hominem/strawman falacy.


I daresay this weird shtick of chastising people for not getting into serious arguments with obvious trolls may be more irritating than the trolls themselves.
 
2013-07-23 10:04:07 AM

ChaoticLimbs: It sure seems like it's a lot of work pulling these knuckle-dragging losers into the 21st century. If only we could just void the old government and all of its hideous rulings and legislations of the last 200 years and actually write a Constitution that specifically outlaws religion-based legislations and outlines everything the government is allowed to do and everything the government is completely forbidden from doing...

Oh wait, they did, and everyone in power has been ignoring the shiat out of it the whole time.


I would add maybe one provision forbidding a candidate or public servant from taking any gift, present, amenity, or accomodation which exceeds ten dollars in value from any person. Not even farking Christmas presents. Somehow there's this loophole which makes it possible for most of our Congressmen to make millions per year on hundreds of thousands of salary. I'm pretty sure 90 percent of it is open bribery, and we're doing nothing.


I think 90% is comes from investment. Of course, when you write the law to specifically exclude yourself from insider information trading rules, you can make some pretty spectacular investments. It's not bribery, though. It's plain, old theft. But, it's legal theft because the laws allow it. It's good to make the laws.
 
2013-07-23 10:04:09 AM

Silly_Sot: Because the following ideas are EVIL and must be eradicated:

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sell all you have and give it to the poor.
As you judge, so shall you be judged.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.


Yes, those, and many other similar sentiments are the most evil things imaginable.


I tried that, but when I went to grab his crotch, he punched me in the face!
 
2013-07-23 10:05:09 AM

randomjsa: The Constitution does not cover marriage


The Supreme Court disagrees.

The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There is no reason whatsoever for them to rule any differently on the question of two people of the same gender getting married than they did on the question of two people of different races getting married.

They sidestepped the issue on questions of standing last time, but there are no standing issues in this case.
 
2013-07-23 10:05:17 AM

Biological Ali: I daresay this weird shtick of chastising people for not getting into serious arguments with obvious trolls may be more irritating than the trolls themselves.


I'd place it on par with the "echo chamber" argument.
 
2013-07-23 10:06:24 AM
Good.
 
2013-07-23 10:07:18 AM

Biological Ali: StoPPeRmobile: Fine, I'll bite.

Calling someone a troll is lazy.

Try a real argument instead of some ad hominem/strawman falacy.

I daresay this weird shtick of chastising people for not getting into serious arguments with obvious trolls may be more irritating than the trolls themselves.




Sometimes you need to cull the herd to keep it healthy.
 
2013-07-23 10:09:32 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Good, now they can have a Flintstones.


May be they can even have same-sex kidnappings and serial killers in Cleveland (John Wayne Gacey does get credit)
 
2013-07-23 10:11:09 AM
sorry Amerika
but you don't actually get to 'vote'
on questions of human rights,

no matter how awesome your prejudice
 
2013-07-23 10:19:30 AM

revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.


I agree. I love how the Ohio GOP and Johnny-boy Kasich tried to stop it and just got shot down. I wonder how much of my tax money will go to a pointless, wasteful fight to get it re-instated?
 
2013-07-23 10:21:12 AM

make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?


I think the greatest message anyone should walk away from here with is that god damned hypen was missing from this headline.  Thank you for this.  You are a prince among artists formally known as prince.
 
2013-07-23 10:24:45 AM

skozlaw: Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?


Here's the thing about the Sodom-smiting: it had more to do with hospitality than gayness. The crowd was upset that there were strangers present. They wanted to humiliate them. Rape is pretty humiliating, so that that what they were screaming they wanted to do. Lot chided them for their bad hospitality. Lot even offered up his own virgin daughters for the crowd to rape (Lot was a very attentive host), but the crowd wanted to punish the strangers for coming into their town.

So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.
 
2013-07-23 10:27:13 AM
DeaH: skozlaw: Actually, these pro-same-sex-marriage rulings are kind of starting to piss me off. I'm still waiting on the end of days I was promised by conservatives and religious nuts regarding the FIRST ruling so many years ago.

Thirteen states and still no doomsday. WTF people? Where's our modern Sodom-smiting?

Here's the thing about the Sodom-smiting: it had more to do with hospitality than gayness. The crowd was upset that there were strangers present. They wanted to humiliate them. Rape is pretty humiliating, so that that  was what they were screaming they wanted to do. Lot chided them for their bad hospitality. Lot even offered up his own virgin daughters for the crowd to rape (Lot was a very attentive host), but the crowd wanted to punish the strangers for coming into their town.

So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.

/ftfm
 
2013-07-23 10:29:32 AM

trotsky: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

I agree. I love how the Ohio GOP and Johnny-boy Kasich tried to stop it and just got shot down. I wonder how much of my tax money will go to a pointless, wasteful fight to get it re-instated?


If they don't fight it, then the Supreme Court can just ignore the case on standing grounds as just happened in the Prop 8 case. When California refused to fight for Prop 8 in the court system, that gave the Supreme Court an out on this case.

To force the Supreme Court to make a ruling, the case has to happen in a State where it will be fought by state officials who have standing..
 
2013-07-23 10:29:51 AM

DeaH: So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.


So if I want to bring about the Rapture, I need to rape an immigrant?  It's never seemed so simple!
 
2013-07-23 10:32:45 AM
This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.
 
2013-07-23 10:33:06 AM

ciberido: There was one today or yesterday about a a pair of transseuxals who are dating or something.  I've been sitting that one out because of all the crap about Zimmerman, then the rape victim in Dubai, and then Laramie and now this.  But I'm sure the derptarians have been busy there, if you have the stomach for it.


Not right after breakfast, thank you.
 
2013-07-23 10:37:06 AM

cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.


Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.
 
2013-07-23 10:37:23 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dickfreckle: I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid.

The Berlin Wall fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I was stationed in Germany.
On watch.
Talk about mixed feelings ...


That had to be a hell of a thing.  I was in Germany the summer before and after (Army brat).  I was only 8 or so at the time, but I definitely remember how big of a deal that was.
 
2013-07-23 10:37:30 AM

bobbette: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Thank you for defeating Gay Communism, Ronald Reagan.


You know, I do credit Ronald Reagan for bringing us gay marriage. The whole "killing all the right people" sentiment from Regan Republicans (there was actually a bumper sticker) rallied the gay movement. This led to the push for gay marriage.
 
2013-07-23 10:38:42 AM
Bold stances on the issue are the only way progress will be made. It is to easy to water down a half-assed position.
Gary Johnson supports not just gay marriage, but a Constitutional Amendment settling the issue once and for all. It was one of the big reasons I voted for him.
 
2013-07-23 10:39:10 AM

born_yesterday: DeaH: So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.

So if I want to bring about the Rapture, I need to rape an immigrant?  It's never seemed so simple!


No, dear, you need to rape them all.
 
2013-07-23 10:39:56 AM

cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.
If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.
It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.
It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.


1. The plane charter was a donation.  (It's in TFA.)
2. Legally married in any state already qualifies for federal tax deductions and benefits.
3. The estate tax is a good thing. Of course, it doesn't kick in until the estate is over $5.25 million.
 
2013-07-23 10:42:42 AM
False flag op to get conservatives to the polls in November 2014.

//Ah who am I kidding, this is very good news.
 
2013-07-23 10:42:45 AM

PanicMan: demaL-demaL-yeH: dickfreckle: I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid.

The Berlin Wall fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I was stationed in Germany.
On watch.
Talk about mixed feelings ...

That had to be a hell of a thing.  I was in Germany the summer before and after (Army brat).  I was only 8 or so at the time, but I definitely remember how big of a deal that was.


By the way, I'm Jewish.
 
2013-07-23 10:45:29 AM

DeaH: born_yesterday: DeaH: So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.

So if I want to bring about the Rapture, I need to rape an immigrant?  It's never seemed so simple!

No, dear, you need to rape them all.


Wait a minute - I thought I just had to kill an Eskimo woman.
 
2013-07-23 10:45:57 AM
i cant wait for all this same-sex marriage stuff to be over.

I think gay people deserve the right to be married, but I'm also sick of hearing about it all the time.
 
2013-07-23 10:46:24 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.

Constitution of the United States of America,
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.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.


Did you not read the sentence after the one you bolded?  Congress did prescribe the effect of marital records between the states, saying that the states didn't have to accept them if they chose not to.
 
2013-07-23 10:47:42 AM
They forgot to tie tin cans to back of the Lear jet.
 
2013-07-23 10:52:07 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: hardinparamedic: You sodomites.

Ezekiel 16:49 - Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

/know he's trolling
//just a reminder


Satirical, actually. I'm an openly bisexual male. Not the self-hating type.
 
2013-07-23 10:52:29 AM

Cataholic: demaL-demaL-yeH: gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.

Constitution of the United States of America,
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.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.

Did you not read the sentence after the one you bolded?  Congress did prescribe the effect of marital records between the states, saying that the states didn't have to accept them if they chose not to.


They passed a very specific law, not a general law. They could have written the law to state that no state must recognize any marriage contract of any other state as a general law.
 
2013-07-23 10:56:51 AM

nickerj1: SecretAgentWoman: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.

He's correct in that it will change CC law.  But not in the way he is thinking.  Currently, some states have stipulations for accepting CC licenses.  For example, state A's license may be valid in state B, but only if the holder of the state A license is over 21 years of age.  Persons between 18-20 years of age, even with a state A license, can't legally carry in state B because state B prohibits CCing by anyone under 21.

Or:
State A only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+.
State B only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+ and pass proficiency exam.
State A and B sign reciprocity agreement to recognize everyone of either state who has a license from either state.
State A amends law to now issue CC licenses to people who are 18+.

State B then can't ban people between ages of 18-21 with a state A license from carrying.


Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.

Turning to age and concealed carry, age is not a suspect classification and certainly has a relationship to emotional immaturity, and preventing immature people from carrying concealed weapons is certainly within the state's reasonable interest in public safety. Accordingly, a state could certainly ban people from carrying even if they're licensed elsewhere based on age.
What they couldn't do is ban people from carrying based on race, gender, religion, political orientation, etc. (and maybe disability, though that's a little more arguable), or allow 18 year olds from the state to carry while not allowing 18 year olds from another state to carry.
 
2013-07-23 10:59:32 AM

Utter Genius: Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.



There's a little more at stake for gays than getting to divorce each other. Visitation and legal rights if one is in the hospital, inheritances, adoptions, transfer of property, etc, basically, everything heterosexuals take for granted when they're married is at stake here. A friend of ours won't come visit NC because she's concerned if her or her partner have medical problems, for example, the other one would have no say on treatment, etc, while in this state.
 
2013-07-23 11:00:41 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: PanicMan: demaL-demaL-yeH: dickfreckle: I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid.

The Berlin Wall fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I was stationed in Germany.
On watch.
Talk about mixed feelings ...

That had to be a hell of a thing.  I was in Germany the summer before and after (Army brat).  I was only 8 or so at the time, but I definitely remember how big of a deal that was.

By the way, I'm Jewish.


I kind of assumed that from the Kristallnacht reference.  But yeah.  I can definitely see the mixed feelings.
 
2013-07-23 11:01:55 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dickfreckle: I, too, saw the Berlin Wall come down, albeit I was a kid.

The Berlin Wall fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I was stationed in Germany.
On watch.
Talk about mixed feelings ...


When I said "kid," I meant it, I didn't actually see it in person, but it defined my adolescence. The point I was trying to make is that the falling of The Wall was extremely symbolic for folks of my age, at the time.

Watching that on TV was a big deal. I don't wish to make any more comparisons aside from reaffirming that while gay liberty might not measure as high the Libertytm scale, it's still important.
 
2013-07-23 11:04:28 AM

WippitGuud: FormlessOne: twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine

OK, you had me at "B-Rock".

"Now, B-Rock says this. He's going to take your ban on same-sex marriage.... shine it up real nice.... turn that sumbiatch sidewys, and stick straight up Ohio's candy ass!"

"If you SMEEEELLLLLLLLLL LAALALALALALAAAAAAAAA.... WHAT B-ROCK.... IS.... COOKIN'!"


He really is the the most electrifying man in political entertainment.
 
2013-07-23 11:07:13 AM

Theaetetus: Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.


Not quite:
"Marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights'" and "resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

/Loving it. (Section II.)
 
2013-07-23 11:07:20 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cataholic: demaL-demaL-yeH: gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.

Constitution of the United States of America,
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.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.

Did you not read the sentence after the one you bolded?  Congress did prescribe the effect of marital records between the states, saying that the states didn't have to accept them if they chose not to.

They passed a very specific law, not a general law. They could have written the law to state that no state must recognize any marriage contract of any other state as a general law.


"General laws" are in contradistinction to local laws or special laws applying to one person. It refers to geographic area or scope, rather than subject matter. Congress can prescribe the effect of the various acts and records, provided they do so on a nation-wide basis, rather than saying, for example, that Mississippi specifically doesn't have to recognize marriages from elsewhere, or that no state has to recognize marriages from Massachusetts.
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.
 
2013-07-23 11:08:53 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Theaetetus: Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.

Not quite:
"Marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights'" and "resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

/Loving it. (Section II.)


... And? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
 
2013-07-23 11:09:38 AM

Notabunny: TuteTibiImperes: Wow, a judge from a typically conservative state getting this right, a buzzfeed link that has actual content, and a comment section under the article that isn't filled with hateful bile?  It's like Christmas in July.

I think it is actually Christmas in Australia, isn't it? Or Googly Moogly day, or whatever the hell they call it down there. That place, I swear.


I'm not sure why but I heart this comment. Thanks for the laugh.
 
2013-07-23 11:09:38 AM
Theaetetus:
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.

Both of which are denied to same sex couples.
 
2013-07-23 11:16:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus:
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.

Both of which are denied to same sex couples.


And they all eat cheese!

Seriously, is it non sequitur day and I missed it? Those have nothing to do with what you said, which was "they passed a very specific law, not a general law". That's incorrect.
 
2013-07-23 11:19:50 AM

jso2897: DeaH: born_yesterday: DeaH: So, long-story-short, you'll have to wait to see what happens with immigration before any smiting can happen.

So if I want to bring about the Rapture, I need to rape an immigrant?  It's never seemed so simple!

No, dear, you need to rape them all.

Wait a minute - I thought I just had to kill an Eskimo woman.


That's Texas. They're already burning.
 
2013-07-23 11:21:08 AM

Theaetetus: Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus:
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.

Both of which are denied to same sex couples.

And they all eat cheese!

Seriously, is it non sequitur day and I missed it? Those have nothing to do with what you said, which was "they passed a very specific law, not a general law". That's incorrect.


Sol how far do you think congress can go with this? State aren't required to recognize marriages of people named James? States aren't required to recognize marriages of left handed people with green eyes and black hair? States are not required to recognize marriages where one member of the couple is in a labor union, dives a Ford, and weighs over 175 pounds?
 
2013-07-23 11:22:00 AM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-07-23 11:22:12 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Cataholic: demaL-demaL-yeH: gaspode: Keep trying, it wont change the fact that the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid. It is one of the fundamental planks of your union and they all know that. The conservative judges just try to avoid having to rule because they know how the ruling will go.

Constitution of the United States of America,
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.

/Stick a fork in it - it's done.

Did you not read the sentence after the one you bolded?  Congress did prescribe the effect of marital records between the states, saying that the states didn't have to accept them if they chose not to.

They passed a very specific law, not a general law. They could have written the law to state that no state must recognize any marriage contract of any other state as a general law.


That's certainly a novel interpretation of the term "general laws."  I'll have to try it sometime.
 
2013-07-23 11:24:19 AM

flondrix: make me some tea: Subby, you couldn't even type out "same-sex marriage"? Really?

On my screen, the headline reads:

Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution

So, looks like the subby did type it out.  What is your problem?


Fark admins fixed the headline. It did originally read SSM.
 
2013-07-23 11:27:40 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus: Philip Francis Queeg: Theaetetus:
The FF&C clause isn't as helpful here as you'd think. Instead, it's really about due process and equal protection.

Both of which are denied to same sex couples.

And they all eat cheese!

Seriously, is it non sequitur day and I missed it? Those have nothing to do with what you said, which was "they passed a very specific law, not a general law". That's incorrect.

Sol how far do you think congress can go with this? State aren't required to recognize marriages of people named James? States aren't required to recognize marriages of left handed people with green eyes and black hair? States are not required to recognize marriages where one member of the couple is in a labor union, dives a Ford, and weighs over 175 pounds?


Under the FF&C clause, or under that "general law" requirement? Any of those are fine. They violate equal protection, but - and here's the part you may be confused on - it's possible for a law to be okay under one part of the constitution, but not okay under another part. For example, under Article I, Congress has the power to pass taxes. If they passed a 95% tax on people named "Philip", that would not be in violation of their Article I powers. It would violate due process and be an unconstitutional bill of attainder, but those are separate portions. You'd be wrong to say the law was unconstitutional because of article I.

Similarly, here, you're wrong to say that DoMA's clause 2 is unconstitutional because of the FF&C clause. It's unconstitutional because of the 5th and 14th amendments.
 
2013-07-23 11:40:52 AM

Bendal: Utter Genius: Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.


There's a little more at stake for gays than getting to divorce each other. Visitation and legal rights if one is in the hospital, inheritances, adoptions, transfer of property, etc, basically, everything heterosexuals take for granted when they're married is at stake here. A friend of ours won't come visit NC because she's concerned if her or her partner have medical problems, for example, the other one would have no say on treatment, etc, while in this state.


I haven't read this thread but I hope this isn't the first time that the issues you just raised have been brought up. So many people are focusing on whether or not bakeries will accommodate same-sex couples. That's not what's at stake. The gay marriage fight isn't over the ceremony or the happy times -- it's about when shiat hits the fan and families are against the wall. It's about medical rights and taxes. Real things that affect families in the long term.
 
2013-07-23 11:46:15 AM

thismomentinblackhistory: Bendal: Utter Genius: Oh look, it's this non-issue again.

Sooooo important for gays to experience divorce.


There's a little more at stake for gays than getting to divorce each other. Visitation and legal rights if one is in the hospital, inheritances, adoptions, transfer of property, etc, basically, everything heterosexuals take for granted when they're married is at stake here. A friend of ours won't come visit NC because she's concerned if her or her partner have medical problems, for example, the other one would have no say on treatment, etc, while in this state.

I haven't read this thread but I hope this isn't the first time that the issues you just raised have been brought up. So many people are focusing on whether or not bakeries will accommodate same-sex couples. That's not what's at stake. The gay marriage fight isn't over the ceremony or the happy times -- it's about when shiat hits the fan and families are against the wall. It's about medical rights and taxes. Real things that affect families in the long term.


Go watch the vids I posted at the beginning. Mighty dusty in that lttle airplane
 
2013-07-23 11:49:36 AM

Theaetetus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Theaetetus: Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.

Not quite:
"Marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights'" and "resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

/Loving it. (Section II.)

... And? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.


Concealed carry is not a basic civil right.
Marriage is.
 
2013-07-23 11:50:27 AM

Government Fromage: mediablitz: The hell you say! What next? Negroes can live anywhere they want? Marry white wimmen? VOTE?

Those successful and attractive african americans think they own this country!


they are getting quite uppity
 
2013-07-23 11:56:24 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Theaetetus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Theaetetus: Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.

Not quite:
"Marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights'" and "resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

/Loving it. (Section II.)

... And? I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

Concealed carry is not a basic civil right.
Marriage is.


... so it has nothing to do with what I said or the conversation I was having. Well, thanks for wasting everyone's time.
 
2013-07-23 12:01:01 PM

Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.



/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!


I had a dream where there were these parasitic worms that burrow into your leg and then into your body and eventually burrow into your brain and put you in a coma, and one of them got into me and I had to cut it out with a pocket knife. And Nikolai Tesla gave me a tourniquet to restrict blood flow to my leg so the worms would have more difficulty spreading.
 
2013-07-23 12:06:29 PM

Theaetetus: nickerj1: SecretAgentWoman: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.

He's correct in that it will change CC law.  But not in the way he is thinking.  Currently, some states have stipulations for accepting CC licenses.  For example, state A's license may be valid in state B, but only if the holder of the state A license is over 21 years of age.  Persons between 18-20 years of age, even with a state A license, can't legally carry in state B because state B prohibits CCing by anyone under 21.

Or:
State A only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+.
State B only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+ and pass proficiency exam.
State A and B sign reciprocity agreement to recognize everyone of either state who has a license from either state.
State A amends law to now issue CC licenses to people who are 18+.

State B then can't ban people between ages of 18-21 with a state A license from carrying.

Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay peopl ...


What's to stop Ohio from amending the marriage reciprocity agreement with the other state to contain language that basically says... "we will accept marriage licenses of Y type from other states but not marriage licenses of X type from other states"?

I didn't read the decision except for the snippet quoted further up, but to me it sounded like the whole decision was about the scope of reciprocity agreements.
 
2013-07-23 12:12:25 PM
Eh, pretty simple in the end, it looks like. Your driver's license is valid in other states, and you can transfer it without jumping through too many hoops; has to be that way. Article IV Section I, Full Faith and Credit.

"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. " - Considering you to register your marriage with the state, and that it's a universal institution, I'd be surprised if it doesn't apply.
 
2013-07-23 12:13:08 PM

serial_crusher: Hmm, iPhone + alcohol = cryptic trolling. Lets try that again.

Those activist judges are at it again, huh?


You made more sense the first time
 
2013-07-23 12:14:08 PM

nickerj1: What's to stop Ohio from amending the marriage reciprocity agreement with the other state to contain language that basically says... "we will accept marriage licenses of Y type from other states but not marriage licenses of X type from other states"?


This:

Theaetetus: States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay people," and that's just not good enough.


They can do it, but only if they have a sufficiently good reason. For example, even though Ohio currently allows first cousin marriages from other states, they could stop allowing those on the grounds that (i) first cousins are not a suspect classification, and (ii) the state has a reasonable interest in preventing probate-free inheritance within consanguineous relationships already covered by intestacy statutes.
However, they don't have sufficiently good reasons when the type depends on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I didn't read the decision except for the snippet quoted further up, but to me it sounded like the whole decision was about the scope of reciprocity agreements.

No, equal protection. It's that Ohio currently accepts those other types of marriages, but not these, and they don't have a sufficiently good reason to do so.

Ohio could refuse to honor any out-of-state marriage that would be illegal in Ohio - no first cousins, no one under 18, no gay people, etc. - and that would address the issue raised in this decision, but it would raise several other issues like the one noted above.
 
2013-07-23 12:16:11 PM

LanceDearnis: Eh, pretty simple in the end, it looks like. Your driver's license is valid in other states, and you can transfer it without jumping through too many hoops; has to be that way. Article IV Section I, Full Faith and Credit.

"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. " - Considering you to register your marriage with the state, and that it's a universal institution, I'd be surprised if it doesn't apply.


That, and DoMA's second clause, is why you're wrong. This is unconstitutional for other reasons. FF&C has nothing to do with it.

/cue "but what about equal protection! Fundamental rights! Loving v. Virginia!" ad nauseum
 
2013-07-23 12:36:34 PM
I'm starting to get upset over the support of same-sex marriage. It's making me reconsider my decision to support same-sex marriage. People need to start voicing their concerns that Obamarriage will do more damage to the economy and way of life in American society than Obamacare.
 
2013-07-23 01:18:25 PM

Theaetetus: No, equal protection. It's that Ohio currently accepts those other types of marriages, but not these, and they don't have a sufficiently good reason to do so.


That's essentially the huge change in jurisprudence regarding gay rights. Even when equal protection was applied, often times appeals courts would reject the equal protection rule (because of its implications) and uphold the same result but on technical grounds. Even in Lawrence v. Texas, the liberals on the Court couldn't bring themselves to make an equal protection argument. Sandra Day O'Connor did, though, and I will always lover her for that.
 
2013-07-23 01:22:53 PM

nickerj1: Theaetetus: nickerj1: SecretAgentWoman: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

I think you are missing the point - they DO recognize marriage licenses issued by other states. Just not teh gay ones. No different than saying they will honor all marriage licenses - except interracial ones. It's discrimination to accept one, and not the other.

He's correct in that it will change CC law.  But not in the way he is thinking.  Currently, some states have stipulations for accepting CC licenses.  For example, state A's license may be valid in state B, but only if the holder of the state A license is over 21 years of age.  Persons between 18-20 years of age, even with a state A license, can't legally carry in state B because state B prohibits CCing by anyone under 21.

Or:
State A only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+.
State B only issues CC licenses to people who are 21+ and pass proficiency exam.
State A and B sign reciprocity agreement to recognize everyone of either state who has a license from either state.
State A amends law to now issue CC licenses to people who are 18+.

State B then can't ban people between ages of 18-21 with a state A license from carrying.

Not necessarily. States are not barred from discriminating against a group ever... they just have to have a sufficiently good reason, with that "sufficiently good" level being determined by how questionable the definition of the group is. For example, a state can discriminate against convicted criminals by not letting them carry concealed weapons, even if another state allows it: convicts aren't a suspect class, and the state has a compelling interest in safety.
Here, gender and sexual orientation are at least quasi-suspect as classifications, and the state's only interest is "we hate gay peopl ...

What's to stop Ohio from amending the marriage reciprocity agreement with the other state to contain language that basically says... "we will accept marriage licenses of Y type from other states but not marriage licenses of X type from other states"?

I didn't read the decision except for the snippet quoted further up, but to me it sounded like the whole decision was about the scope of reciprocity agreements.


There are no reciprocity agreements regarding marriage
 
2013-07-23 01:31:08 PM

Funk Brothers: I'm starting to get upset over the support of same-sex marriage. It's making me reconsider my decision to support same-sex marriage. People need to start voicing their concerns that Obamarriage will do more damage to the economy and way of life in American society than Obamacare.


Well ultimately it is just more people for the crippled, maimed, ugly, and widowed to subsidize, and that is pretty bullshiat.
 
2013-07-23 01:45:15 PM

Silly_Sot: Rhino_man: davidphogan: pootsie: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, watch this video about the couple in this lawsuit.

But be sure to have the hankies handy

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130714/NEWS10/307140009/To-get- ma rried-they-left-Ohio?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

How the fark can anyone argue against letting them be married?  I mean, what the fark is wrong with people?

Jesus.
Does that answer your question?

Because the following ideas are EVIL and must be eradicated:

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sell all you have and give it to the poor.
As you judge, so shall you be judged.
Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.


Yes, those, and many other similar sentiments are the most evil things imaginable.


I never said that Jesus had a problem with it.  I just said that they use him as their excuse.
 
2013-07-23 01:57:34 PM

Tedlick: cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.

Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.


Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.
 
2013-07-23 02:03:14 PM

pootsie: There are no reciprocity agreements regarding marriage


Wouldn't it be funny if Congress said, like they did when they wanted the drinking age raised to 21, "okay, states, we're cutting your highway funds by 10% unless you enact marriage reciprocity laws"?

/like that stands a snowball's chance in hades
//yeah, I'm looking at you, House
///slashies for marriage equality
 
2013-07-23 02:07:11 PM

cchris_39: Tedlick: cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.

Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.

Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.


That's like saying this would effectively end the limitation on personally owning nuclear weapons, because all it would take is for one state to allow possession and sale of them. Why would any state do that? Why would some state recognize incestuous marriage?
 
2013-07-23 02:09:35 PM

Harry_Seldon: Rachel Maddow is going to be insufferable tomorrow.


Oh, I don't know, I'm sure I could make her suffer, if you know what I mean.

And I think you do.
 
2013-07-23 02:10:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EnglishMan: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.

Nope, I was 7 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed. This is bigger, because the Soviets were only a threat in the sense that they might have bankrupted us first.

Oh, I guess all those wars and dead people aren't as important as a few gays having tacky weddings.

Wars over nothing? Yeah. They 100% aren't as important as living up to the concepts laid down by the Constitution.


Had the USSR not existed the CIA, NSA, DIA hell entire intelligence community would be a fraction of the size and far worst funded than it is today. Defense contractors wouldn't have the amount of political sway and entrenched connections. People who lived through the nuclear scares and cold war would have flipped their shiat over the encroachment of personal freedoms lost during 911 and that doesn't count the nearly 100 million people who were killed as a direct result of the USSR government.

Yes legalized same sex marriage is a huge deal and a great thing. It isn't anywhere on the same level as the fall of the USSR. The US ending slavery was close but even that was mostly a localized event where as the USSR was a huge global event that we are still today feeling the ramifications from.
 
2013-07-23 02:12:01 PM

cchris_39: Tedlick: cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.

Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.

Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.


... and the problem is...?
 
2013-07-23 02:15:10 PM

Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?


The U.S. Supreme Court was very careful to craft their opinions as narrowly as possible, and they side stepped the issue as to whether the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution applied to gay rights as it applied to state laws or whether it was the exclusive domain of the states.  In the Prop 8 case, out of California, they held the party appealing the matter lacked standing and as a result the lower court's ruling allowing gay marriage remained in place.  They didn't address the issues on the merits.  They totally side stepped the issue.

In the DOMA case, their ruling really only addressed the federal law and federal issues.  Again, they sidestepped whether the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution applied to gay rights as it related to state laws.

Instead of looking exclusively at the cases they ruled on, it is important to consider the cases they didn't review, and thereby allowed the lower courts opinions stand.  Two cases that would have required them to determine if the Equal Protection Clause applied to homosexual rights, without providing the ability to sidestep the Equal Protection clause trumps state laws, took place in Arizona and Nevada.

In the Arizona case their refusal to review the case let stand an appeals court ruling striking down an Arizona law that made state employees in same-sex relationships ineligible for domestic partner benefits. If the matter was as simple as you suggested, that this issue is left exclusively up to the states, than they could have accepted the appeal and said so.  They didn't which suggest there is something more to it....  of course they also rejected review of the Nevada case.

The Nevada case was a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. However, it is interesting to note that this case was not heard by the 9th Circuit, and was appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court's failure to grant review doesn't kill the matter, it only means the 9th Circuit will have to hear it.  So they sidestepped the issue, at least for the present time.  When the 9th Circuit renders a decision it could be appealed to the Supreme Court by the losing side.  The Nevada case is interesting in that the Nevada state legislator has a measure before it to amend the state constitution legalizing gay marriage, that will come up on the state ballot in 2015.   I suspect one of the reasons the Supreme Court refused to grant review is the opinion expressed by several justices that they would rather wait and allow society's acceptance of gay rights issues to unfold more, before forcing this issue onto the nation by way of a legal opinion.

Am I reading too much into the Supreme Court's failure to review those cases?  Only time will tell.  But, if it was as simple as the states have exclusive rights to define marriage than the Supreme Court could have either accepted those cases and addressed the issue, or simply held that in their opinions in either the Prop 8 or DOMA, but they didn't, they side-stepped the issue.
 
2013-07-23 02:15:41 PM

Rhino_man: cchris_39: Tedlick: cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.

Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.

Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.

... and the problem is...?


He said it was a good thing. Its right there in the post you quoted.
 
2013-07-23 02:20:20 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh,, now I'm hoping that was a joke but well if not please describe the passages where Jesus talks about such things : )


See, heathen that you are, you don't understand the majesty and glory of accepting Him as your Personal Lord and Savior TM!

When you come to know the Lord in such a deep and intimate way, you needn't rely solely on His transcribed Word!  With your new Gift of Discernment, you will know what He really meant, even if He never actually said it!

Yes, you literally know the Mind of God!  It speaks directly to you!  And Its revelations to you are always True, Right and Eternal!

And in your heart of hearts, in your enlightened Soul you know this Truth:

Homosex is just icky.
 
2013-07-23 02:21:45 PM
... with liberty and justice for all.*

*even people of different religions.
 
2013-07-23 02:22:26 PM

cchris_39: Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.


 [quizzical_dog.jpg]
1. Estate tax kicks in when the estate is valued at more than $5.25 million per person - you're talking ~140,000 people in the entire country, or about 1,000 deaths in a given year.
2. If your assets are worth that much ($10.5 million for a married couple) and don't already have an AB Trust, you're a moron.
 
2013-07-23 02:23:56 PM

flondrix: randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.

The Lee v. Grant decision of 1865 put an end to concept of "states rights".


A Supreme Court decision repealed the 10th Amendment?
 
2013-07-23 02:26:38 PM

SunsetLament: flondrix: randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.

The Lee v. Grant decision of 1865 put an end to concept of "states rights".

A Supreme Court decision repealed the 10th Amendment?


I laughed.
 
2013-07-23 02:27:10 PM

SunsetLament: flondrix: randomjsa: I support same sex marriage but I do not think that it does. The Constitution does not cover marriage, so its a states rights issue.

The Lee v. Grant decision of 1865 put an end to concept of "states rights".

A Supreme Court decision repealed the 10th Amendment?


Nevermind.

/Right over my head; should have paid closer attention.
 
2013-07-23 02:33:23 PM

Theaetetus: cchris_39: Tedlick: cchris_39: This appears to be to avoid the estate taxes.

If they can afford a specially equipped jet there is obviously a good bit of money involved here. Not to mention paying their lawyers.

It will be interesting if "legally married in any state" gets you the unlimited marital deduction.

It probably should. But, that would effectively end the estate tax. Which is also a good thing.

Why would it effectively end the estate tax? It's not like that tax only hit gay couples.

Because all you need is for one state to recognize incestuous marriage.

Then everybody gets a deathbed wedding like these guys and no more estate tax.

That's like saying this would effectively end the limitation on personally owning nuclear weapons, because all it would take is for one state to allow possession and sale of them. Why would any state do that? Why would some state recognize incestuous marriage?


Also wasn't part of the judge's reasoning in this case that Ohio will recognize a marriage that is valid in Kentucky (for example) but would not normally be valid in Ohio, he specifically spoke to first cousins and minors. So Ohio doesn't get to pick and choose which marriages that are valid elsewhere they will treat as valid or not.
 
2013-07-23 02:39:51 PM

MyRandomName: This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .


Concealed Carry is a Fundamental Right?  Who knew?

Neighborhood Watch: If the US Supreme Court majority believed that homosexual marriage was a constitutional 'civil right', then it would have said so and struck down DOMA in its entirety and all states would be compelled to honor homosexual marriages, period.


Everyone point and laugh at the troll who doesn't know the history of the Court hewing to the narrowest possible grounds for decision-making, and preferring to rule on procedure rather than the merits!
 
2013-07-23 02:58:14 PM
On Ohio's refusal to acknowledge other state's legally granted gay marriages, the Federal Court says:


"Dear Ohio yes states are allowed to decide marriage, but remember you are a state. suck the following in order: US constitution Article 6 section 2, Article 4 section 1, and amendment #14. Now sit your 5 dollar ass down before I make change."
 
2013-07-23 03:15:00 PM

Deucednuisance: MyRandomName: This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

Concealed Carry is a Fundamental Right?  Who knew?

Neighborhood Watch: If the US Supreme Court majority believed that homosexual marriage was a constitutional 'civil right', then it would have said so and struck down DOMA in its entirety and all states would be compelled to honor homosexual marriages, period.

Everyone point and laugh at the troll who doesn't know the history of the Court hewing to the narrowest possible grounds for decision-making, and preferring to rule on procedure rather than the merits!


And thereby abdicating all claim to the tilte "Judge", since they refuse to use their supposedly superior judgment, which should have been the reason they attained the postion of "judge".

See also: priest/ess, teacher, musician, sage.
 
2013-07-23 03:20:18 PM

serial_crusher: Hmm, iPhone + alcohol = cryptic trolling. Lets try that again.

Those activist judges are at it again, huh?



www.troll.me
 
2013-07-23 03:27:59 PM

pxlboy: hardinparamedic: You sodomites. Don't you know this is just ANOTHER example of unconstitutional activist judicial law making that is sweeping our country since ZEROBAMA got into office? If we start becoming accepting of the homogay, another 9/11 is JUST AROUND THE CORNER as punishment from God for rejecting his founding principles of the United States.

You people should ALL BE ASHAMED that you have turned your backs on the one, true loving God which brought you into this world, and have embraced sinful lifestyle choices such as this. We should not encourage these mentally ill people to live in their sinful delusions!

Not sure if satire or trolling...


Neither.
 
2013-07-23 03:58:32 PM

SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?


This is the real question.

/former Ohioan
 
2013-07-23 04:04:43 PM

miss diminutive: Ahhh, progress. One state at a time, one country at a time. Sometimes it falters and appears to stall or even reverse. But slowly, inexorably, progress rumbles forward.


Rumbles? Interesting.

In this case I might have gone with "leapfrogs".
 
2013-07-23 05:01:35 PM

SunsetLament: A Supreme Court decision repealed the 10th Amendment?


Actually, it was a settlement reached in the Appomattox county courthouse.
 
2013-07-23 05:03:00 PM

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.


As long as we find the cause and then a cure for homosexuality.

Let up pray for a cure to this mental illness.
 
2013-07-23 05:06:20 PM

BKITU: Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


[i2.kym-cdn.com image 359x263]


Because homosexuality is wrong and leads to disease and death. They murder children and blame everyone else.
 
2013-07-23 05:11:17 PM

BrotherThaddeus: Also wasn't part of the judge's reasoning in this case that Ohio will recognize a marriage that is valid in Kentucky (for example) but would not normally be valid in Ohio, he specifically spoke to first cousins and minors.


How does that work if you are married to someone who is not just below the legal age for marriage, but also below the age of consent in the state you have just moved to?  Once upon a time, being married to the victim negated charges of rape, but that is not the case anymore.  In theory, a state could recognize your marriage as valid, but arrest you if there were any evidence that you had consummated it, or were planning to leave the state to consummate it somewhere else.

To further complicate things, some states used to have the age of consent set older than their own minimum age for marriage.  For all I know, some states may still have this situation.
 
2013-07-23 06:00:10 PM

wxboy: ambassador_ahab: feckingmorons: IT is a TRO, there hasn't been any argument about it yet. This is not a big deal.

The judge wouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction (TRO) if he thought it was merit-less.

The case is apparently only 3 days old, hardly time for anything.


In order to have a TRO granted there is a pretty hefty court proceeding. The proponents have to show that there is a likelihood of success upon the merits of the case. While this isn't as high of a standard as preponderance of the evidence, it is still material.

The granting of a TRO in a situation with limited fact discovery, as in this case, is a very good sign that a permanent injunction will be entered.
 
2013-07-23 06:12:56 PM

flondrix: Once upon a time, being married to the victim negated charges of rape, but that is not the case anymore.


Although you're correct with regard to forcible rape, every rape statute I've seen that mentions age has a spousal exemption. For example, in Ohio (where this story takes place), the statute is 2907.04:
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.

There's also 2907.02:
(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies...
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.


So, if you marry a 12 year old*, you can legally nail them in Ohio**.

*you can't marry them in Ohio - you may have to go to another state or country where that's legal. Mind you, you don't want to transport them across state lines while you do, since that raises other issues.
**you can also legally nail them in the butt, Bob.
 
2013-07-23 06:40:37 PM

Kuroshin: Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.


That was 2004. I wonder if enough bigots have died off to reverse it in 2014 elections.
 
2013-07-23 07:13:02 PM

Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.


YES.
from, we who work the black seam.

What type of LED headlamp do you use in your sector?
 
2013-07-23 07:18:52 PM

Theaetetus: you can't marry them in Ohio - you may have to go to another state or country where that's legal.


I don't think marriages from other countries get you off the hook in the USA if something about your marriage violates state law.  For example, polygamous immigrants seeking citizenship have to choose one of their spouses to be "legal" in the US, and hope the others can get citizenship separately.
 
2013-07-23 07:43:17 PM

flondrix: Theaetetus: you can't marry them in Ohio - you may have to go to another state or country where that's legal.

I don't think marriages from other countries get you off the hook in the USA if something about your marriage violates state law.  For example, polygamous immigrants seeking citizenship have to choose one of their spouses to be "legal" in the US, and hope the others can get citizenship separately.


Age of consent to marriage is usually one of the things that's allowed to transfer. In other words, if it's legal to get married at 16 in one state or country and you get married and move to Ohio, Ohio will accept such marriages as valid, even though you're not yet 18 as required under Ohio state law.
 
2013-07-23 09:37:51 PM
HAH.

You think you won, pillow biters and butt pirates?  This all is part of the Republican plan.  Now, all you gays will move to Ohio and get gay married and then live in rest of their gay lives in Ohio.  In forty years, on your gay deathbeds, you'll lay there and realize, "shiat, I just spent 40 years in Ohio."

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-23 10:30:48 PM
So if I want to try a new position and my wife wants the same ol same ol, can I sue her for violating my constitutional rights?
 
2013-07-23 10:41:59 PM

pueblonative: So if I want to try a new position and my wife wants the same ol same ol, can I sue her for violating my constitutional rights?


Wut?
 
2013-07-23 10:48:18 PM

vygramul: pueblonative: So if I want to try a new position and my wife wants the same ol same ol, can I sue her for violating my constitutional rights?

Wut?


Only in Virginia.
 
2013-07-23 10:56:42 PM

pueblonative: So if I want to try a new position and my wife wants the same ol same ol, can I sue her for violating my constitutional rights?


What does sex have to do with marriage?
 
2013-07-23 11:16:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ambassador_ahab: ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is

Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?

Dammit. No.
Onan had a responsibility to give his brother an heir. It's called Levirate marriage.
Instead, he had his fun with the widow, but pulled out, spilling his seed on the ground.
Because of that, he was struck dead.
Onanism is coitus interruptus.


You're correct about what Onan's sin was, Biblically speaking.  But you're incorrect about the definition of the word "Onanism."  It can mean either coitus interruptus OR masturbation.  It may be based on a misconception, but that's what the word means regardless, I'm afraid.
 
2013-07-23 11:21:25 PM

duffblue: cameroncrazy1984: duffblue: revrendjim: This is not just another domino. This is a big farking deal. I love watching history happen. I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Now this.

Wipes away tear.

Yes because this is on the same scale as the Fall of the USSR

Yeah, equal rights for all Americans IS on that scale.

You must be under 20 years old.


This is what I call a "sore loser."

You're losing.  Equal rights for gays is coming.  Suck it up and deal with it.  Or whine louder and let us enjoy your butthurt.  That works, too.

/over 20
 
2013-07-23 11:21:53 PM

ciberido: demaL-demaL-yeH: ambassador_ahab: ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is

Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?

Dammit. No.
Onan had a responsibility to give his brother an heir. It's called Levirate marriage.
Instead, he had his fun with the widow, but pulled out, spilling his seed on the ground.
Because of that, he was struck dead.
Onanism is coitus interruptus.

You're correct about what Onan's sin was, Biblically speaking.  But you're incorrect about the definition of the word "Onanism."  It can mean either coitus interruptus OR masturbation.  It may be based on a misconception, but that's what the word means regardless, I'm afraid.


That's some fine Onanistic analysis, Lou.
 
2013-07-23 11:23:52 PM

robertus: Ilmarinen: *scans thread*

Hey, not a single purple 5 (for homophobes) post. Don't they feel like chiming in or is there a transgenders thread going on somewhere that I don't know about?

This being Fark, I assume there's always a transgenders thread going on somewhere.


Once a week or so has been the average over the past year, I'd say.  Now a thread about ANY variety of lbgtq?  Every damn day.

Not that I'm complaining, but it keeps me busy.
 
2013-07-23 11:36:28 PM

missiv: Aarontology: Rwa2play: dr_blasto: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 277x277]
Bigotry, intolerance, prejudice, and social "conservatism" always lose.

Always.

It just takes too long.

Much too long.

I dunno. I get a sort of sadistic pleasure in watching the bigots' world crumble before their eyes after a long life of believing they were in the right, with them going to their deaths knowing they failed and their work was all for naught.

YES.
from, we who work the black seam.



One day in the nuclear age, they may understand our rage.
 
2013-07-24 01:53:10 AM

ciberido: demaL-demaL-yeH: ambassador_ahab: ciberido: If you want Biblical terms for sex acts, the correct term for masturbation is

Ok, but is "onanism" a form of sodomy, or is it a whole separate thing?

Question 2:  If "spilling your seed" is against biblical law, then is it ok for women to have at it since their "seed" doesn't get spilled, per se?

Dammit. No.
Onan had a responsibility to give his brother an heir. It's called Levirate marriage.
Instead, he had his fun with the widow, but pulled out, spilling his seed on the ground.
Because of that, he was struck dead.
Onanism is coitus interruptus.

You're correct about what Onan's sin was, Biblically speaking.  But you're incorrect about the definition of the word "Onanism."  It can mean either coitus interruptus OR masturbation.  It may be based on a misconception, but that's what the word means regardless, I'm afraid.


Seriously?
Are you sure you want to argue the merits of 18th century Latin/French mistranslation of Biblical Hebrew with a Jew?

/How refreshing.
 
2013-07-24 02:41:13 AM
OK, so my understanding of this is the judge ruled that Ohio can't just accept some oos marriages and not others, correct? Examples used were first cousins or underage marriage.  OK, hurrah.
Now do they have any legal recourse like amending their constitution to NOT recognize oos marriages?  I am hoping that is not doable since it would require TAKING AWAY the recognition of unions currently existing.
Am I correct on this? They can't just "fix" this with another more specific ban, right ?
 
2013-07-24 09:03:26 AM
It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


God, trolls let anyone in their club these days.

********************************************************************* * *******

I would have thought that even a troll would have known that the president can't veto a supreme court ruling. It's really getting hard to find good trolls these days.
 
2013-07-24 09:04:55 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously?
Are you sure you want to argue the merits of 18th century Latin/French mistranslation of Biblical Hebrew with a Jew?

/How refreshing.


Who knows about the Bible
 
2013-07-24 11:14:52 AM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


Is this a parody account?
 
2013-07-24 01:06:01 PM

sdromeo: ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.

Is this a parody account?


I'm not trying the poeslaw. You'll have to sample it yourself.
 
Displayed 427 of 427 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report