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  
•       •       •

19801 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report