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

(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  
•       •       •

19842 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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SunsetLament: A Supreme Court decision repealed the 10th Amendment?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 27 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report