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.

(Detroit Free Press)   While everyone is distracted by the debt ceiling fight, a federal judge may legalize same-sex marriage in Michigan today   (freep.com) divider line 121
    More: Interesting, Michigan Today, gay marriage ban, Michigan, LGBT rights in Michigan, federal judges, Michigan Attorney General, federal benefits, federal courts  
•       •       •

2529 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2013 at 2:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-16 03:24:02 PM  
You better straighten up your shiat pussy, baby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT1AHDjzcsQ
 
2013-10-16 03:28:39 PM  

thecpt: It always looked like a hand grabbing a weird penis. Now I can imagine a ring around traverse city.


Um... I think that says more about you than the state.

/Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice
 
2013-10-16 03:30:49 PM  
But he can't grant the motions today.
 Dammit.
 
2013-10-16 03:32:00 PM  
slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.

I hope so because you are right, politically Michigan is one friggin' weird state.

And I don't feel comfortable living in a state that bans same-sex marriage - it's too stupid.
 
2013-10-16 03:34:39 PM  
Damnit, a trial set for Feb 25th.  Well, more waiting.
 
2013-10-16 03:35:28 PM  
No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25.

Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...
 
2013-10-16 03:39:26 PM  
The state argues there are "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents. "That's why the Michigan legislature passed a law making it a felony to be a single parent."
 
2013-10-16 03:41:32 PM  
While it being overturned(if I am to believe the analysis I've seen) is great news, it also gives me a sad about NJ. We were one of the first states to have civil unions, and we've still not at full equality.
 
2013-10-16 03:42:10 PM  
February 25th?  dammit!

browneye: slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.

I hope so because you are right, politically Michigan is one friggin' weird state.

And I don't feel comfortable living in a state that bans same-sex marriage - it's too stupid.


We're mostly a blue state (nationally, president and senators) that is purple on governors (not too unusual) and gerrymandered to f--k and back so we're reddish on US congress and Lansing senators and reps.  And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP.

It's fun.

I agree with you completely on your last point, though.
 
2013-10-16 03:45:11 PM  
Both dads are willing to give up their kids for adoption? We're missing out on the best part of this story.
 
2013-10-16 03:45:15 PM  
It's all fun and games until a Wolverine gay-marries a Buckeye.
 
2013-10-16 03:46:28 PM  

wxboy: No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25.

Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...


Probably going to have to sit through appeals court and potentially SC before anything happens anyways.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:00 PM  
Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:32 PM  

wxboy: No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25....Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...


I don't think its that bad to get a trial. That way you might get a finding of fact (as well as a conclusion of law) that would be useful down the road as well.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:59 PM  
It's due diligence on the judge's part. Whichever way it goes, he doesn't want to be overturned on a technicality.
by Noel Siksai


I can begrudgingly understand this comment.

On the plus side, I now have time to make a fabulous rainbow version "Yes, Michigan!" on a t-shirt.

/the feeeeeling's foreeeeever... (youtube)
 
2013-10-16 03:48:28 PM  

Theaetetus: The state argues there are "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents. "That's why the Michigan legislature passed a law making it a felony to be a single parent."


You cut it off too soon:

Adoption, unwed couples having children, and undergoing any form of fertility treatment are now all class 2 felonies. Divorce has been banned.
 
2013-10-16 03:48:55 PM  

Phineas: Suck on that, libs


"Libs" is so 2006. The new hotness is "Libulardos."

/get with the times
 
2013-10-16 03:49:06 PM  

Phineas: Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.


Tyranny of the majority.
 
2013-10-16 03:51:42 PM  
pfft.. who cares?  seriously that topic is so last year that if everyone just ignored these "announcements" that just serve to troll the morons against it.. it would be legal in every state by now.
 
2013-10-16 03:57:10 PM  

hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...


Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.
 
2013-10-16 04:04:11 PM  

flondrix: hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...

Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.


I don't know if it is such a bad analogy. There is this guy at work who keeps telling me "try it, you will like it this time." It's been 37 times now and I still don't like blowing him. I am starting to wonder if I ever will.
 
2013-10-16 04:04:52 PM  
Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.  Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.  Why is the government in the business of granting subsidies and tax benefits or anything of that nature to people just because they are married?   Why should the government be telling who can and can't get married?   


That's what doesn't add up to me.  I don't care if you like the poon or the peen...
 
2013-10-16 04:07:07 PM  

AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown. I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while. I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue. My girlfriend may not approve though.


Let her watch.
 
2013-10-16 04:09:00 PM  
Michigan has a gay marriage ban? Seriously? I bet Michiganders are all red in the face now about that. "It was the early 2000s, it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Yeah, you should just file that away with your Hoobastank CD.
 
2013-10-16 04:10:11 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.


Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.
 
2013-10-16 04:11:03 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.


They can if they get married, idiot.
 
2013-10-16 04:11:30 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: I don't have a dog in this fight.

OTOH, I did have hot buttsecks last night. So, YAY?



Life will pound away
Where the light don't shine, son
Take it like a man
 
2013-10-16 04:11:37 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.  Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.  Why is the government in the business of granting subsidies and tax benefits or anything of that nature to people just because they are married?   Why should the government be telling who can and can't get married?   


That's what doesn't add up to me.  I don't care if you like the poon or the peen...


Married couples are more stable, and support one another better/longer than unmarried couples. That cuts down on the government's need to take care of people who don't have a family support network. The subsidy probably pays for itself and then some. If you're so uncommitted that you won't go get the piece of paper, then you probably aren't going to last as a couple as long as married people do on average.
 
2013-10-16 04:15:53 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP


That city is poor because the source of the wealth--the auto industry--has gone elsewhere.  How does the county around it remain rich?  Even if some people managed to hold on to the money they made during the boom times, wouldn't they just take that money somewhere nicer once the area became all depressing and icky?
 
2013-10-16 04:17:00 PM  

flondrix: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.

Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.


Well, he did actually say that.  In a pretty stupid manner perhaps but that seemed to be his point.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:12 PM  

lennavan: flondrix: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.

Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.

Well, he did actually say that.  In a pretty stupid manner perhaps but that seemed to be his point.


Wait whoops, I mean he said he didn't want anyone to have the tax breaks thing.  He wants everyone to have the visitation/adopt/benefits bit.  You know what, forget it, I wasn't here.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:31 PM  

Phineas: Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.


I am sure you would be fully in support of the public voting for a law that requires everyone to punch you in the face. After all the people support it.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:40 PM  

flondrix: hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...

Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.


Something something EABOD (EAPOD?) something....
 
2013-10-16 04:24:16 PM  

mbillips: Michigan has a gay marriage ban? Seriously? I bet Michiganders are all red in the face now about that. "It was the early 2000s, it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Yeah, you should just file that away with your Hoobastank CD.


Yeah, well, most of us who were agin' it aren't red in the face with embarrassment.  Personally I'm still pissed off when I remember how ignorance and out of state organizing monies pulled that off (Family Research Council threw down a LOT, and some backing from the f--king Catholic church, and that's when I cut my ties to "would go to mass when visiting with Mom" to "once a year plus funerals, weddings, or baptisms").

I lived in a college town bubble at the time and was honestly floored when it passed (hell, the Catholic church I sometimes attended had a LGBT support/rights group, still do probably).  My friends and I all wore black and grey the next day because what the hell else could we do.

Dubya got re-elected that same day too.  We didn't vote for him in Michigan, though.
 
2013-10-16 04:26:06 PM  
slayer199: "It's an odd state politically"

It's only 'odd' if you subscribe to political team sports.
A gay marriage ban was a 'gimme' in Michigan, due to so many of the sub-groups being very socially conservative.
Do you really think large swaths of Detroit and Dearborn are voting for gay marriage just because they vote Dem, nationally?
Not to mention Michigan's shrinking populations of the college educated and youth, as people have been moving elsewhere to find jobs for some time.

It remains damn near a miracle that medical marijuana went through. (And that, I'd bet, only because the suburban conservatives have been watching their parents deal with the diseases of age and reading articles about a hit from a vaporizer conveying more quality-of-life than a fistful of prescription pills, at a fraction of the price.)
 
2013-10-16 04:40:55 PM  
Semantic Warrior:
Honestly, while I support marriage between any two legally consenting individuals, I'm not sure if I agree that the Feds are allowed to intervene...

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment says hello.
 
2013-10-16 04:46:15 PM  
Postponed until February 25th? WTF?
 
2013-10-16 04:59:40 PM  
It is a pity that the SCOTUS didn't issue a broader ruling. On the other hand, given that much of a generation has died off since 2004, I suspect an anti-gay provision wouldn't pass today. Not saying all of the bigots and wowsers are old, but a majority of the ancients are intolerant, un-christian, inflexible, and bigoted. And they use the Bible as an excuse.
 
2013-10-16 05:01:23 PM  

slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.


Having grown up there:

Detroit is BLUE.
Ann Arbor is also BLUE.  (In a state where Romney pissed off everybody, and Obama won by 449K out of 4.5 Million votes cast, Wayne + Washtenaw counties were 446K of that 449K (for about 900K voters).)
Oakland and Macomb counties are lightly blue, but could be convinced to go pink if the Republican isn't insane (See Snyder's first election).  Also, they're pissed at Democratic corruption and despise Detroit.

The rest of the state is somewhat red.  There's county-level exceptions, but the population doesn't matter (UP's pretty blue, but UP is only 300K people total).

So if you can get into a state where the Republican is seen as sane and the Democrat is seen as corrupt, that vast, over-represented, majority is able to show up, get the suburbs on their side, and win.  Otherwise, the Democrats win.  Combine this with the somewhat laid-back attitudes common to the midwest (For example, I honestly don't care whether the gays can marry.  I don't see why not, but I'm not going to go out and actively lobby for it.  There's no real skin off my back either way), and:

Hardcore R vs. hardcore D = R's win.
R vs D where the suburbs actually CARE and throw in with the D's = D's win.
R vs D where it's about poor black folks, corruption, and/or Detroit = R's win in a landslide.
 
2013-10-16 05:03:35 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
From Wikipedia:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#fi l e

Shown in Dark Blue: The United States of Canada
Shown in Gray: Jesusland, aka Rocky the Flying Squirrel

Lookit, his little blue eyes and his baby blue cap! He's qwazy!
 
2013-10-16 05:04:11 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.
 
2013-10-16 05:04:45 PM  

ringersol: It's only 'odd' if you subscribe to political team sports.
A gay marriage ban was a 'gimme' in Michigan, due to so many of the sub-groups being very socially conservative.
Do you really think large swaths of Detroit and Dearborn are voting for gay marriage just because they vote Dem, nationally?
Not to mention Michigan's shrinking populations of the college educated and youth, as people have been moving elsewhere to find jobs for some time.

It remains damn near a miracle that medical marijuana went through. (And that, I'd bet, only because the suburban conservatives have been watching their parents deal with the diseases of age and reading articles about a hit from a vaporizer conveying more quality-of-life than a fistful of prescription pills, at a fraction of the price.)


I don't subscribe to either teams' politics.

As for medical marijuana...that's a no brainer.  In fact, now that a majority of the US Population supports outright legalization, I would expect it to be legal to possess and use in the next 10 years (that number will only go up).
 
2013-10-16 05:10:58 PM  
The above map proves that cute little Red Squirrels make you liberal, big nasty Black/Gray Squirrels make you conservative. Must have something to do with eating squirrels and getting Mad Squirrel Disease.

I believe that was the theme of Le Rouge and Le Noir by Stendhal, or maybe I'm think of The Adventures of Chatterer the Red Squirrel  by Thorton W. Burgess.

Chit, chit, chit, chit, chit, chit, chit. That's squirrel for "Hey, you kids! Get off of my lawn!"
 
2013-10-16 05:13:35 PM  

Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.


What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?
 
2013-10-16 05:14:54 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: We're mostly a blue state (nationally, president and senators) that is purple on governors (not too unusual) and gerrymandered to f--k and back so we're reddish on US congress and Lansing senators and reps.  And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP.


meyerkev: Detroit is BLUE.
Ann Arbor is also BLUE.  (In a state where Romney pissed off everybody, and Obama won by 449K out of 4.5 Million votes cast, Wayne + Washtenaw counties were 446K of that 449K (for about 900K voters).)
Oakland and Macomb counties are lightly blue, but could be convinced to go pink if the Republican isn't insane (See Snyder's first election).  Also, they're pissed at Democratic corruption and despise Detroit.


Yes, we're gerrymandered.  But Detroit is really blue, and surrounded by lightly blue suburbs which makes for a few nice, safe Democratic majority districts while the rest of the state is able to go be somewhat red.

Combine this with the fact that the state-level Republican party is as a whole generally sane and/or realist (Note that they didn't screw with the unions until after the unions had gotten most of the blame for destroying the auto industry in 2008), and the bit where you end up with a lot of people who vote R on the state level (because they're sane and the D's are corrupt) and D on the national level (because the national Republicans are crazy) and I'm not surprised that a state that voted for Obama by 10 points also sent 9R, 5D.  The political geography supports it.

/And then the state R's nominate Pete Hoekstra, and everyone votes Democrat for a cycle to say "Hey, maybe that's too crazy and openly racist".
 
2013-10-16 05:15:18 PM  

brantgoose: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x411]
From Wikipedia:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#fi l e

Shown in Dark Blue: The United States of Canada
Shown in Gray: Jesusland, aka Rocky the Flying Squirrel

Lookit, his little blue eyes and his baby blue cap! He's qwazy!


New Jersey does not belong in Jesusland, tyvm.
 
2013-10-16 05:22:26 PM  

natazha: It is a pity that the SCOTUS didn't issue a broader ruling. On the other hand, given that much of a generation has died off since 2004, I suspect an anti-gay provision wouldn't pass today. Not saying all of the bigots and wowsers are old, but a majority of the ancients are intolerant, un-christian, inflexible, and bigoted. And they use the Bible as an excuse.


I dunno. Its been what, 60 years since a major expansion of civil rights has been won without running to the courts? The "let the states decide. Also, no backsies" ruling could be a godsend for the left, tactically speaking. 50 reasonably winnable fights that stay won and help develop organizational skills and divert activist thought away from rules lawyering your opponent out of the game and towards dealing outright defeats.
 
2013-10-16 05:28:16 PM  

soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?


Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.
 
2013-10-16 05:31:54 PM  

Phineas: soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?

Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.


I notice that you're not complaining about interracial marriage being on there. What's so different about gay marriage?
 
2013-10-16 05:33:47 PM  

Phineas: soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?

Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.


So it's okay then to deny interracial couples the right to marry, since they have no inherent right to a "societal construct"?
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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