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.

(USA Today)   Utah state lawyers think that "equal protection under the law" is just the opinion of one man   (usatoday.com) divider line 113
    More: Unlikely, Utah State, Utah, equal protection, University of Richmond, Salt Lake County, marriage licenses, Utah County, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

2558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Dec 2013 at 10:55 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-24 10:40:03 AM
The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....
 
2013-12-24 10:54:18 AM

Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....


Is there a name for a Christian version or Sharia law, one that carries the same boogeyman aura with the simple folks?
 
2013-12-24 10:56:49 AM
They should probably read the Bible.  I bet that man would be Jesus.
 
2013-12-24 10:57:28 AM
www.btchflcks.com
 
2013-12-24 10:57:45 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....

Is there a name for a Christian version or Sharia law, one that carries the same boogeyman aura with the simple folks?


Marya Law.
 
2013-12-24 10:58:20 AM
Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?
 
2013-12-24 10:58:53 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....

Is there a name for a Christian version or Sharia law, one that carries the same boogeyman aura with the simple folks?


I don't know, but V for Vendetta and Tea Party rallies probably have it covered.
 
2013-12-24 10:59:31 AM

God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?


The funny thing is people use this as a serious argument.
 
2013-12-24 11:02:12 AM
Are taxpayers funding the fight against marriage equality?
 
2013-12-24 11:02:16 AM

Fart_Machine: God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?

The funny thing is people use this as a serious argument.


Which isn't very funny. :/
 
2013-12-24 11:03:53 AM
Ah, traditional bigotry.  It's tradition, so it's OK!
 
2013-12-24 11:06:19 AM
Utah is the 18th state where gay couples can wed, and the sight of same-sex marriages occurring just a few miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church has provoked anger among the state's top leaders.

HA HA
 
2013-12-24 11:06:25 AM

God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?


its complicated...but basically some christian sects believe that same sex marriage is a sin.  now, we can quibble over the details on that one but go with me on this for a moment.  ok, so.. yeah.  some christians believe same sex marriage is a sin.  they also believe that they have a moral obligation to oppose sin and evil no matter where it pops up.  again, we can quibble on if they should be doing that or not, but we're talking about THEIR belief, not ours.  right - with me so far?  so gay marriage is a sin, and they've got this moral code that says they have to oppose sin.  you don't back down on commandments from your god.  you don't compromise, you don't give ground, you fight with all ya got because hey - that's your GOD who just said you had to go fight evil.  you don't listen to excuses either because you really truly and honestly believe that sin has to be opposed.  if you slip and fall for even one moment, if you let slide on sin, then you'll be condemned to a fiery pit for all eternity alongside the sinners you're trying to oppose.  so you're always afraid for your mortal soul, that if you don't stop this gay marriage thing then your god will smash you down come judgement day.  THAT'S why they oppose gay marriage.  because they believe it'll be a mark against them when they face Apep on their journey to the underworld.
 
2013-12-24 11:07:42 AM
Giving Utah credit for adopting same-sex marriage is like being proud of your grandpa for no longer being racist after suffering a massive stroke that took away much of his brain function.
 
2013-12-24 11:08:59 AM

Weaver95: God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?

its complicated...but basically some christian sects believe that same sex marriage is a sin.  now, we can quibble over the details on that one but go with me on this for a moment.  ok, so.. yeah.  some christians believe same sex marriage is a sin.  they also believe that they have a moral obligation to oppose sin and evil no matter where it pops up.  again, we can quibble on if they should be doing that or not, but we're talking about THEIR belief, not ours.  right - with me so far?  so gay marriage is a sin, and they've got this moral code that says they have to oppose sin.  you don't back down on commandments from your god.  you don't compromise, you don't give ground, you fight with all ya got because hey - that's your GOD who just said you had to go fight evil.  you don't listen to excuses either because you really truly and honestly believe that sin has to be opposed.  if you slip and fall for even one moment, if you let slide on sin, then you'll be condemned to a fiery pit for all eternity alongside the sinners you're trying to oppose.  so you're always afraid for your mortal soul, that if you don't stop this gay marriage thing then your god will smash you down come judgement day.  THAT'S why they oppose gay marriage.  because they believe it'll be a mark against them when they face Apep on their journey to the underworld psychopathy.



Abbreviated that for you.
 
2013-12-24 11:10:22 AM
Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.
 
2013-12-24 11:11:22 AM

Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....



traditional marriage
is this the state that just decriminalized polygamy?

perhaps they need to define traditional
 
2013-12-24 11:11:34 AM

Devo: Are taxpayers funding the fight against marriage equality?


Not nationwide - only taxpayers in those states which are engaged in legal battles. In the case of Utah, I have no doubt that a majority of taxpayers consider this a good use of public funds.
 
2013-12-24 11:12:35 AM

Lackofname: Fart_Machine: God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?

The funny thing is people use this as a serious argument.

Which isn't very funny. :/


It's the kind of funny as in funny in the head.
 
2013-12-24 11:14:11 AM

lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.


They struck down DOMA, so I have hope.
 
2013-12-24 11:14:11 AM

bindlestiff2600: Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....


traditional marriage
is this the state that just decriminalized polygamy?

perhaps they need to define traditional


It was a federal judge, and it wasn't so much decriminalizing polygamy as decriminalizing the unlawful cohabitation part of the statute.
 
2013-12-24 11:14:53 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....

Is there a name for a Christian version or Sharia law, one that carries the same boogeyman aura with the simple folks?


"Real America"?

The sad thing is: these are folks who think that "freedom of religion" means that EVERYONE is free to worship their way, and that's about it.

Marriage equality should be a fairly simple case: freedom of religion, equal access under the law, right to privacy. Under multiple areas of our Constitution, it should be fairly simple to validate those who are consenting adults to enter into a marriage, and who aren't related to one another. It should be fairly easy. The problem is, we have busy bodies who feel that their faith should trump anyone else, and who want to limit what other folks' practice in their homes, and limit any competition at the pulpit. And they want to cast the "freedom of religion" argument out there, because they KNOW that it is the argument that is most against them. Methodists, even some Baptists, Unitarians and others would like to perform ceremonies for their congregations, and that's the issue: these are folks who want to limit what OTHER churches do, and claim that it's in the interests of the free exercise of religion to prevent others from doing so.

Freedom of religion, equal access under the law, and the right to privacy. Plain and simple, marriage equality needs to be heard on these grounds before the highest court, because we need to put the shilloverse to bed on this one. It's well past time.

One of the most moving things we saw in Massachusetts when marriage equality finally became law, was couples in their 60s and older, who had been together for years, finally able to marry. They were together, married save for the scrap of paper, but that validation in the eyes of community, to be joined before their loved ones, that was a damn dusty time up in Taxachusetts, and that is what folks are standing against: folks who love one another. Who want the same things that they grew up with their parents having. They want the love of their partner, to come home to bills and dogs and cats, and maybe a boring Chamber of Commerce meeting, and to go to church on Sunday, walk the dog in their neighborhood, and be as normal as anyone else. They want the same things: to love, to grow old together, to hold hands, to fight about who took out the garbage, to pester and nag, and to make up, and play dumb pranks, and all the rest of the things that married folks do. And most importantly: declare their love to that one person, to their community and say, "This person is MINE and anyone who messes with them is going to get something very pointy and sharp!" It is a joining of families, of community, and it's basic. That's what opponents of marriage equality fear the most: that folks will realize that the "gay agenda" is to be normal and boring and just love their partners. That's what they stand against: love. Well, that and perhaps slightly different choices of music at their receptions...
 
2013-12-24 11:16:18 AM
Epithet night, racist night
Hate those queers, hate from the right
Round yon homos, fruits and poofs
Holy bigotry, tender gay spoofs
Sleep in bigoted peace,
Sleep in bigoted peace.
Epithet night, racist night
Politicians quake, at the sight
Glories stream from discrimination
Heavenly, hosts scream "abomination".
Christ the Savior hates gays,
Christ the Savior hates gays.
Epithet night, racist night 
Son of God, he hates the pillow-bites
Radiant lies of the Savior's intent
Saying that homos must now repent,
Jesus, Lover of all non-queers
Jesus, Lover of all non-queers.
 
2013-12-24 11:23:00 AM

Emposter: Ah, traditional bigotry.  It's tradition, so it's OK!



I wish that argument worked for the non-hateful traditions. Traditionally my family was minor nobility in Britain, could I get everyone to start treating me like a lord if I promise to be a jerk?
 
2013-12-24 11:24:15 AM
If being gay is such a serious offence, why isn't it in the 10 Commandments? Apparently lying is a much bigger deal than being gay, since it made the cut. And lying is forgivable if you just ask Jebus to forgive you. Since being gay is on par with eating shrimp or catfish according to Leviticus (and I know me some shrimp and catfish eating Baptist), I can't see how it's such a big deal. If it was, I would think "Thou shalt not be gay" would at least be in the top 5.
 
2013-12-24 11:26:27 AM

lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.


 It's not equal protection based orientation, it's equal protection based on the fact that all persons have the right to marry and you can't limit that without a compelling reason.
 
2013-12-24 11:26:49 AM
As a Californian, I am enjoying this Karma. All that money you spent in California ultimately brought Equal Marriage to your state.
 
2013-12-24 11:27:24 AM

Emposter: Ah, traditional bigotry.  It's tradition, so it's OK!


When the New Mexico Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in NM they addressed the "It's tradition!" argument with a simple dismissive "That just means the discrimination has been occurring for a long time."
 
2013-12-24 11:31:36 AM

rynthetyn: lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.

 It's not equal protection based orientation, it's equal protection based on the fact that all persons have the right to marry and you can't limit that without a compelling reason.


While the DOMA decision shows hope (agreed Marcus Aurelius) I have a feeling that a wider, applicable to states, decision from the supreme court will be harder to get by the dread chief justice Roberts.
 
2013-12-24 11:33:20 AM
Those Mormons just want marriage to be traditional, between a man and a woman...and another woman...and perhaps a few more.
 
2013-12-24 11:39:30 AM

God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?


Really, even someone of a different ethnic background? Wow, that seems fair - has Traditional Marriage always been so flexible?
 
2013-12-24 11:40:06 AM

pueblonative: psychopathy


Labeling people that don't believe the same things as you with the blanket term "psychopath" is an unbelievably narrow minded and ignorant view. I sincerely hope that you're trolling and that I've taken the hook.
 
2013-12-24 11:42:33 AM

lockers: rynthetyn: lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.

 It's not equal protection based orientation, it's equal protection based on the fact that all persons have the right to marry and you can't limit that without a compelling reason.

While the DOMA decision shows hope (agreed Marcus Aurelius) I have a feeling that a wider, applicable to states, decision from the supreme court will be harder to get by the dread chief justice Roberts.


 You don't need Roberts, you just need Kennedy.
 
2013-12-24 11:50:00 AM

Devo: As a Californian, I am enjoying this Karma. All that money you spent in California ultimately brought Equal Marriage to your state.


Same here. After all the vitriolic lies that UT based groups spread around this state in the campaign for prop 8 I can't help but take some small enjoyment at watching them flailing in impotent rage at having to allow gay marriage in their own state. Aah schadenfreude.
 
2013-12-24 11:53:18 AM

rynthetyn: You don't need Roberts, you just need Kennedy.


Kennedy was clearly uncomfortable with his decision in Doma. He could go either way.
 
2013-12-24 11:57:04 AM

lockers: rynthetyn: You don't need Roberts, you just need Kennedy.

Kennedy was clearly uncomfortable with his decision in Doma. He could go either way.


If he has a personal interest in the outcome of the case, he should probably recuse himself.
 
2013-12-24 11:58:37 AM

BMulligan: lockers: rynthetyn: You don't need Roberts, you just need Kennedy.

Kennedy was clearly uncomfortable with his decision in Doma. He could go either way.

If he has a personal interest in the outcome of the case, he should probably recuse himself.


Nice.
 
2013-12-24 11:58:52 AM
There fools keep citing their Bibles. What? Buddhists can't get married?
 
2013-12-24 12:06:48 PM
In the bizzaro universe, I wonder what President Romney thinks of this.
 
2013-12-24 12:07:24 PM
Traditional? Oh so you mean like my Great great grandfather and his 33 wives? No joke. And my great great grandmother was 14 and he was almost 80 and she had 10 kids with him. 
Pretty convenient how the church can just forget all about it's history and persecution (and they are defined by their persecution complex) only to turn into the ones that are now persecuting.
Utah - where your free agency is chosen for you
 
2013-12-24 12:19:14 PM
Well, equal protection is not a guaranteed right.  See "Selective Service"
 
2013-12-24 12:19:29 PM

Devo: In the bizzaro universe, I wonder what President Romney thinks of this.


Does not compute in Romneybott 3000
 
2013-12-24 12:20:25 PM

lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.


The awesome part of our legal system is that even though this is true, the fact is we interpret the Constitution by modern-day understandings and can extend equal protections to include sexual orientation, sex, and race (the fact that we added Amendments to explicitly do so was to further biatchslap those ignorami who can't read into context etc., basically the forum trolls of the day).
 
2013-12-24 12:21:46 PM
Does the word "traditional" include the idea that black people are cursed with the mark of Cain and therefore unfit?
 
2013-12-24 12:22:14 PM

Fart_Machine: God's Hubris: Every person is free to worship the Jesus of their choice. They are also free to marry anyone from the opposite sex. Why is this so hard?

The funny thing is people use this as a serious argument.


I've seen that one used in person.  There logic was the nation was a christian one, so the first amendment protection only applied to Christians.  People who want some other faith should just go somewhere else, or something, per that person.
 
2013-12-24 12:23:23 PM

lockers: rynthetyn: lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.

 It's not equal protection based orientation, it's equal protection based on the fact that all persons have the right to marry and you can't limit that without a compelling reason.

While the DOMA decision shows hope (agreed Marcus Aurelius) I have a feeling that a wider, applicable to states, decision from the supreme court will be harder to get by the dread chief justice Roberts.


Isn't he retired and living like a king in Pattagonia?
 
2013-12-24 12:40:11 PM

Smoking GNU: antidisestablishmentarianism: Weaver95: The Mormon church said Friday it stands by its support for "traditional marriage" and hopes a higher court validates its belief that marriage is between a man and woman.

well that's kinda creepy.  I mean, that a church needs a court of law to validate their religious beliefs.  seems a tad strange if you ask me.....

Is there a name for a Christian version or Sharia law, one that carries the same boogeyman aura with the simple folks?

Marya Law.


What are we gonna do about a law called Marya?
 
2013-12-24 12:41:28 PM

lockers: Not to be that guy, but equal protection as defined by the constitution does not include sexual preference. It should, but times were very different when it was drafted and implemented. These guys are on the wrong end of history, but equal protection isn't really something you can hang your hat on with our supreme court, where they take constructionist views on constitutional issues. When I say constructionist, I mean the conservative one where they take the result they seek and work backwards to justify it.


the hell it isn't.  This is dangerously wrong, for starters the constructionist view, which for you legal farkers is the textualism or originalist view point is farkin bankrupt when it comes to equal protection.  Was it Bork who tried to rectify textualism with the ruling in Brown v. Board, and ended up making the living constitutionalism argument.

The fact of the matter is Kennedy hates the tiered system of equal protection analysis.  Windsor says pretty clearly that a state cannot discriminate based on "gays are icky/tradition".  And I am ok with abandoning the tiered system in favor of "did you pass this law because you are a dick" instead of engaging in a debate what level of judicial scrutiny should be applied.

That said please make the federalism argument...seriously... do it.... because Windsor was not decided on that basis at all.

Now based off the comment your saying the right controls the supreme court, I would agree that is true, but our current Court is far more Corpratists(?) then it is Socially Conservative.  Equal protection of the gays has 5 votes in my opinion.  Kennedy has never voted as a dogmatic jackass like Scalia, at least when it comes to equal protection.

The more interesting thing to me is how that plays out in future equal protection cases that do not involve the LGBT community.
 
2013-12-24 12:45:17 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: pueblonative: psychopathy

Labeling people that don't believe the same things as you with the blanket term "psychopath" is an unbelievably narrow minded and ignorant view. I sincerely hope that you're trolling and that I've taken the hook.


That is if we ignore the undue suffering one person would inflict on another for completely ideological, cultural, and/or other completely arbitrary reasons, in which case that's the completely correct word to be using.
 
2013-12-24 12:45:54 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Now based off the comment your saying the right controls the supreme court, I would agree that is true, but our current Court is far more Corpratists(?) then it is Socially Conservative. Equal protection of the gays has 5 votes in my opinion. Kennedy has never voted as a dogmatic jackass like Scalia, at least when it comes to equal protection.

The more interesting thing to me is how that plays out in future equal protection cases that do not involve the LGBT community.


It will be an interesting year for the court. Lots of interesting potential precedent setting questions around equal protection. I will wait and see just how non-dogmatic Kennedy is willing to be.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report