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.

(Huffington Post)   10th Circuit Court denies Utah governor's "emergency" stay motion for marriage equality   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 207
    More: Followup, Utah Governor, Utah, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, same-sex marriages, Gary Herbert, Neil Abercrombie, Hollingsworth, third state  
•       •       •

5899 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Dec 2013 at 7:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-23 07:12:41 AM  
Maybe Mormons ARE Christians after all.
 
2013-12-23 07:13:13 AM  
Neener
 
2013-12-23 07:18:04 AM  
Everyone, get emergency gat married now!
 
2013-12-23 07:20:28 AM  
Followup tag trumps Hero tag?
 
2013-12-23 07:21:42 AM  
I might die laughing if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and is the case that gets marriage discrimination declared unconstitutional. There would be something fitting about it being Utah's law that causes marriage equality nationwide.
 
2013-12-23 07:21:51 AM  
OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!
 
2013-12-23 07:22:26 AM  
Live, from SLC, I can once again report that fire is not, I repeat, is not raining down from heaven.
 
2013-12-23 07:22:30 AM  
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge..."


Ding ding ding! Everybody drink!
 
2013-12-23 07:24:45 AM  
I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

i456.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-23 07:25:23 AM  

Kyosuke: "I am very disappointed an activist federal judge..."

Ding ding ding! Everybody drink!


Fark. I have to work today too
 
2013-12-23 07:28:19 AM  

markfara: OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!


But this is a slippery slope. Next we'll hear that men should be allowed to marry multiple, young teenage girls. We need to protect tradition!

We ... Oh.
 
2013-12-23 07:28:48 AM  

CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

[i456.photobucket.com image 383x223]


He's aging worse than his father. Possible he has a conscience after all?
 
2013-12-23 07:30:28 AM  
Look, you piece of sh*t asshat, you couldn't defend "traditional marriage" because same-sex marriage doesn't threaten it in any way. So f*ck you and go home... You lose.
 
2013-12-23 07:30:30 AM  
BWHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
 
2013-12-23 07:31:14 AM  

T-Servo: markfara: OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

But this is a slippery slope. Next we'll hear that men should be allowed to marry multiple, young teenage girls. We need to protect tradition!

We ... Oh.


I can't wait to start hearing the Biblical anti-polygamy arguments, once that issue starts getting traction.
 
2013-12-23 07:31:16 AM  

CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:


But she will in front of her mother?
 
2013-12-23 07:34:46 AM  

AMonkey'sUncle: CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

[i456.photobucket.com image 383x223]

He's aging worse than his father. Possible he has a conscience after all?


Lanadapter: CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

But she will in front of her mother?


I just love the relation of the photos AND the fact that the captions imply the "real reason for the iraq war" was because she wouldn't do anal in front of her father...
 
2013-12-23 07:39:50 AM  
It's times like this I wish I had invested in that whaaaaambulance.
 
2013-12-23 07:41:17 AM  

CeroX: AMonkey'sUncle: CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

[i456.photobucket.com image 383x223]

He's aging worse than his father. Possible he has a conscience after all?

Lanadapter: CeroX: I want to know what comedic genius thought of these stories at the bottom should be related:

But she will in front of her mother?

I just love the relation of the photos AND the fact that the captions imply the "real reason for the iraq war" was because she wouldn't do anal in front of her father...


Well, it may have been a contributing factor.
 
2013-12-23 07:42:01 AM  

Rosyna: Everyone, get emergency gat married now!


Why would someone marry their gun?
 
2013-12-23 07:43:29 AM  

HighlanderRPI: Rosyna: Everyone, get emergency gat married now!

Why would someone marry their gun?


Shotgun marriages are a time honored tradition in some parts of the county.
 
2013-12-23 07:47:14 AM  

HighlanderRPI: Rosyna: Everyone, get emergency gat married now!

Why would someone marry their gun?


Why do you hate the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-12-23 07:47:19 AM  
This may have been asked in the other threads on this, but I wasn't around for those, but if this thing makes it to the supreme court and the law remains overturned on 14th amendment grounds, is that basically the game for gay marriage? Are the other laws on the books in other states now invalid?
 
2013-12-23 07:51:51 AM  

bsharitt: This may have been asked in the other threads on this, but I wasn't around for those, but if this thing makes it to the supreme court and the law remains overturned on 14th amendment grounds, is that basically the game for gay marriage? Are the other laws on the books in other states now invalid?


It would be major precedence, yeah. You'd Still see an occasional attempt crop up to make another law, but eventually someone would cite this decision and it would likely die that fast.
 
2013-12-23 07:51:58 AM  
So, the state that is all but in name run by a cult founded by a known con man and crook is complaining that it doesn't have the freedom to do as it wishes?
 
2013-12-23 07:53:09 AM  

coeyagi: Look, you piece of sh*t asshat, you couldn't defend "traditional marriage" because same-sex marriage doesn't threaten it in any way. So f*ck you and go home... You lose.


Well, you can defend the religious aspect of it, except that's not under attack either.  Nobody I know, even the libbiest libs who ever libbed, want to take away the right of a church to not perform same-sex ceremonies.  Marriage as a legal instrument is nothing more than an exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons.  How exactly is denying that based on gender not discrimination?
 
2013-12-23 07:56:01 AM  

bsharitt: This may have been asked in the other threads on this, but I wasn't around for those, but if this thing makes it to the supreme court and the law remains overturned on 14th amendment grounds, is that basically the game for gay marriage? Are the other laws on the books in other states now invalid?


No. Since the Supreme Court has to decide these things on a state-by-state basis, on the individual state constitutions. The main thing for Utah wasn't whether or not equal gay marriage was 'right', but whether or not the Utah state constitution has evidence that allowing gay marriage would impede or harm heterosexual marriage.

Utah was not able to prove that their constitution would damage 'traditional' marriages by allowing gay marriage, therefore under the 14th amendment they must allow equal marriage opportunities.

Don't get me wrong, gay marriage will become a thing in all 50 states eventually, but this is something that'll have to be done one state at a time.

And the GOP is dead set on obstructing their way into stopping it in any way they can. Up until it happens. Then it becomes, "Oh, well we never really cared about gay marriage to begin with. This is a non-issue and liberals are the real bigots for bringing up gay marriage to begin with. There are more important things to worry about. Why do we keep talking about gay marriage?"

They're just too dumb to realize they've lost this social issue and that they once again remain on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-12-23 07:59:33 AM  
Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?
 
2013-12-23 08:02:05 AM  

Weatherkiss: Don't get me wrong, gay marriage will become a thing in all 50 states eventually, but this is something that'll have to be done one state at a time.


I don't disagree, but I bet that after we have 25-30 or so states that have legalized it, you'll start to see the remaining states change their laws pretty quickly.  At some point, the legislature in each state will realize they don't want to be known as the last one that was holding out on this issue.  Then we can move on to the next hot spot.

Taking bets here, but I foresee an epic fight between Democrats and Republicans on the constitutionality of the mechanical bull.
 
2013-12-23 08:02:13 AM  

nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?


What the fark am I reading?
 
2013-12-23 08:03:16 AM  

nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?


I'm in favor of things that expand/support individual rights. I oppose things that hinder/oppress individuals. Big government is, in my opinion, a good thing when it operates within this framework. When it doesn't, that's a problem.
 
2013-12-23 08:04:32 AM  
The denial of the stay motion seems to suggest that this won't be overruled by the SCOTUS since it would create a different tier of marriages, where some SSMs are legitimate and others aren't.
 
2013-12-23 08:04:48 AM  

Overused Expression: At some point, the legislature in each state will realize they don't want to be known as the last one that was holding out on this issue.


You have a much higher opinion of GOP-controlled state governments than I do.  They will wear their refusal as a badge of courage.
 
2013-12-23 08:05:09 AM  

nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?


Eh, 2/10 at best, but I'll get out the popcorn anyway just to see how many people bite.
 
2013-12-23 08:05:17 AM  

markfara: nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?

I'm in favor of things that expand/support individual rights. I oppose things that hinder/oppress individuals. Big government is, in my opinion, a good thing when it operates within this framework. When it doesn't, that's a problem.


this is a reasonable counter argument to my points. I don't agree with it, but respect it. I suppose the difference is that long term I just don't trust them
 
2013-12-23 08:06:24 AM  

nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?


Nobody.
 
2013-12-23 08:06:30 AM  

nickdaisy: markfara: nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?

I'm in favor of things that expand/support individual rights. I oppose things that hinder/oppress individuals. Big government is, in my opinion, a good thing when it operates within this framework. When it doesn't, that's a problem.

this is a reasonable counter argument to my points. I don't agree with it, but respect it. I suppose the difference is that long term I just don't trust them


I don't either, really. But what else we got?
 
2013-12-23 08:07:57 AM  
Three Crooked Squirrels:You have a much higher opinion of GOP-controlled state governments than I do.  They will wear their refusal as a badge of courage.

I wouldn't say that...my opinion of most of the government's about as low as it can get ;) But after a certain point, the momentum will simply be against them, and continuing to defend their position will only show the people voting for them a politician that continually is on the losing side.  Politicians are meek critters, they'll cave pretty quickly.
 
2013-12-23 08:09:39 AM  

Overused Expression: Weatherkiss: Don't get me wrong, gay marriage will become a thing in all 50 states eventually, but this is something that'll have to be done one state at a time.

I don't disagree, but I bet that after we have 25-30 or so states that have legalized it, you'll start to see the remaining states change their laws pretty quickly.  At some point, the legislature in each state will realize they don't want to be known as the last one that was holding out on this issue.  Then we can move on to the next hot spot.

Taking bets here, but I foresee an epic fight between Democrats and Republicans on the constitutionality of the mechanical bull.


I agree there too. There'll be a tipping point where a number of states will start flipping their laws fairly quickly to avoid the costly legal and political ramnifications of going against the 'status quo' that gay marriage is okay when it becomes evident they've lost the battle.

There might be a few refuges left where they'll adamantly shout down any attempt at changing their laws, if anything to become 'famous' for being the last bastion of 'traditional' marriage. No such thing as bad publicity, after all.

I'm going to take the bet that the next social justice issue is going to revolve around atheism/agnosticism and a revision of the separation of church and state.
 
2013-12-23 08:10:08 AM  
I am a conservative. I am a teabagger. That said, my mom was gay, so I have a dog in this fight. The courts are there to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is some times like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Let whomever marry whomever they love, with all the things that go with it. I cannot see how states can deny it. It is fair credit.
 
2013-12-23 08:11:36 AM  

GDubDub: I am a conservative. I am a teabagger. That said, my mom was gay, so I have a dog in this fight. The courts are there to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is some times like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Let whomever marry whomever they love, with all the things that go with it. I cannot see how states can deny it. It is fair credit.


This may be impossible to answer, but do you think you'd be for SSM if you did not have a family member who was gay?
 
2013-12-23 08:12:00 AM  
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," Herbert said of the Thursday ruling. "I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."


Still true as ever:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-23 08:13:36 AM  

nickdaisy: Oh good, look the federal government is acting outside of its authority and telling the people and states how to conduct their personal affairs!  Do this, believe that, don't believe this!  Wait-- do they have the power to do this?  Sure, it's based on a mythical right to privacy that they invented!

You moronic progressives will clap your semen stained hands together when it's gay marriage for which they're inventing a federal authority, but when the same system invents a way for the NSA to spy on you the left becomes furious.

Can't you see that by blindly allowing the federal government to act outside of it's authority you've enabled a powerful central authority that jeopardizes all civil liberties?  Want to blame someone for undeclared wars and the military industrial complex?  Blame those idiots who let FDR play dictator for a good cause, LBJ prosecute a war on poverty concurrent with a war on Vietnam, and Obama drone attack US citizens while passing a mandatory insurance scheme.

Who's with me?



What a "moronic Progressive" might look like.
static5.businessinsider.com

/no idea what might be staining her hands
 
2013-12-23 08:13:56 AM  

markfara: T-Servo: markfara: OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

But this is a slippery slope. Next we'll hear that men should be allowed to marry multiple, young teenage girls. We need to protect tradition!

We ... Oh.

I can't wait to start hearing the Biblical anti-polygamy arguments, once that issue starts getting traction.


Polygamy is unnatural.
Who ever heard of a person having feelings for more than one person.


/only gays can argue they were born that way
 
2013-12-23 08:16:43 AM  

GDubDub: I am a conservative. I am a teabagger. That said, my mom was gay, so I have a dog in this fight. The courts are there to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is some times like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Let whomever marry whomever they love, with all the things that go with it. I cannot see how states can deny it. It is fair credit.


but this IS a tyranny of the majority. federal judges are inventing an authority that doesn't exist and doing it at the insistence of the pro gay marriage lobby.  the better way would be to let state legislatures enact this reform.  by this method you're emboldening the Feds beyond their mandate.

Tell us more about your gay mom. Does she party?
 
2013-12-23 08:17:48 AM  

Resident Muslim: markfara: T-Servo: markfara: OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

But this is a slippery slope. Next we'll hear that men should be allowed to marry multiple, young teenage girls. We need to protect tradition!

We ... Oh.

I can't wait to start hearing the Biblical anti-polygamy arguments, once that issue starts getting traction.

Polygamy is unnatural.
Who ever heard of a person having feelings for more than one person.


/only gays can argue they were born that way


No, it has more to do with legal rights and ownership in the case of a divorce.  When you bring more than two people into the equation it becomes a legal nightmare as to who has a right to what.
 
2013-12-23 08:18:53 AM  
Remember how the Mormons poured a buttload of cash into the gay marriage fight in California? Now they have to live with it on their home turf.

i238.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-23 08:19:34 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Resident Muslim: markfara: T-Servo: markfara: OMG! People are being treated equally under the law! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

But this is a slippery slope. Next we'll hear that men should be allowed to marry multiple, young teenage girls. We need to protect tradition!

We ... Oh.

I can't wait to start hearing the Biblical anti-polygamy arguments, once that issue starts getting traction.

Polygamy is unnatural.
Who ever heard of a person having feelings for more than one person.


/only gays can argue they were born that way

No, it has more to do with legal rights and ownership in the case of a divorce.  When you bring more than two people into the equation it becomes a legal nightmare as to who has a right to what.


Unlike when a couple divorces, when it all goes smoothly.
 
2013-12-23 08:19:38 AM  

nickdaisy: GDubDub: I am a conservative. I am a teabagger. That said, my mom was gay, so I have a dog in this fight. The courts are there to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is some times like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Let whomever marry whomever they love, with all the things that go with it. I cannot see how states can deny it. It is fair credit.

but this IS a tyranny of the majority. federal judges are inventing an authority that doesn't exist and doing it at the insistence of the pro gay marriage lobby.  the better way would be to let state legislatures enact this reform.  by this method you're emboldening the Feds beyond their mandate.

Tell us more about your gay mom. Does she party?


WTF are you talking about?  This is about a judge ruling that a law goes against the constitution, which is exactly what judges are supposed to do.
 
2013-12-23 08:20:36 AM  
I am sick and tired of hearing gay marriage opponents whine about how "activist judges" are denying the will of the people

The judges are daring to actually follow the law and rights should not be dictated by the "will of the people"

Racism is still alive and well in many parts of the country and if the court ever agrees that rights should be dicatated by majority rule then blacks and women will have a lot to be concerned about.

Just replace Gay with Black and it puts things in perspective

"Gay People should not be allowed to wed" - that's how the Lord says it should be
"Black People should not be allowed to wed" - YOU'RE RACIST!

As I recall back in the mid 20th century, it was illegal for a black person and a white person to marry.  The fears were unfounded then and they are unfounded now.
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report