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.

(Washington Post)   US Supreme Court halts Utah same-sex marriages pending appeal. Sorry, procrastinators   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, Supreme Court halts, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1283 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:35 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-06 05:31:04 PM  
3 votes:

Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.


So you're 26 years old?
2014-01-06 01:55:19 PM  
3 votes:
Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.
2014-01-06 02:50:50 PM  
2 votes:

nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which? The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?


Exactly, and in this case, civil rights trump the majority, because the majority cannot prove any specific harms caused by the minority getting to marry. In fact, the Prop 8 ruling codified that straights have no standing to oppose gay marriage because they cannot demonstrate how they are harmed.

Even if the majority might feel it is harmed, it has to prove that this harm is so substantial to deprive the minority of its rights. Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church: the majority feels it is harmed because it has to put up with Westboro saying things they don't like. However, despite the fact that the majority disapproves of Westboro, the minority does not need the majority's approval to exercise its rights. Because having your feelings hurt, getting offended, or hating the fact that a bunch of people say things that make your blood boil isn't enough of a harm to ban others from saying things you don't like.

In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.
2014-01-06 02:23:38 PM  
2 votes:
I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.
2014-01-06 02:05:26 PM  
2 votes:
Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.
2014-01-06 09:29:02 PM  
1 vote:

Girl Sailor: Testiclaw: Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.

Are you kidding? If you put civil rights up to a vote in some southern states TODAY it'd still be a close call.

Yes, sometimes we who don't live in areas which proudly tout their racism as a badge of honor do enjoy finding fault with what, in retrospect, are terrible ideas.


Yea most people don't realize school segregation is still on the books in Alabama although when it came up in 2012 all of the sane people voted to keep it becuase the way the Republican legislature wrote the new law it didn't guarantee a right any public education for anyone.

/Sigh
2014-01-06 07:32:30 PM  
1 vote:

Tergiversada: Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?

I am a devout Mormon, a convert of 27 years married to a non-Mormon. We have been married 22 years. We were married in the courthouse by the justice of the peace, not in an LDS temple. The marriage is recognized by the church, but it is "until death do us part", whereas an LDS temple marriage is for time and all eternity. I married him despite our religious differences because I knew he was "the one".


So he can change the matrix?
2014-01-06 05:45:18 PM  
1 vote:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.



Actually, that was a smaller, faster turtle. But good job.

/Slowpoke.
2014-01-06 03:44:21 PM  
1 vote:

Musikslayer: nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?

The civil rights. The first part of the sentence should have been "The opinions of the majority of the people", not "rights". There is plenty of precedent, from women voting to slavery and all sorts of other issues.

If one asked people in Arkansas "Should we kill all Mooslims?", the majority might vote yes. That's not how things work, fortunately. Just because a majority "wants" something doesn't mean it will apply to any sort of law. The majority of a state might want the speed limit to be 100, the majority of the US might want a Congresscritter to make $30K a year.


"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." - Kurt Cobain
2014-01-06 03:26:23 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


SO FAR

SO FAR
2014-01-06 03:05:16 PM  
1 vote:

soporific: Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.

"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.


Well if it's Utah that brigs marriage equality to all 50 states I'd say that's already pretty funny.
2014-01-06 02:58:57 PM  
1 vote:

Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.


"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.
2014-01-06 02:50:00 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


You shrug it off now, but wait until she finds out that she can legally marry a black man.
2014-01-06 02:38:05 PM  
1 vote:

firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.


You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.
2014-01-06 02:22:44 PM  
1 vote:
Also, do you know what I really DON'T want to explain to my daughter?  Why there are poor people in this country.  Why people in Africa die of starvation.  Why people in best Korea are tortured.  Those things are OBSCENE.  Gays, that's an easy one.  Some people are gay.  That one's simple.
2014-01-06 02:20:44 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


Well of course, she is not at the age of consent.  Which is 7 for turtle marriage. I suggest a head of lettuce or an aquarium as a dowry, as mandated by the turtle's parents.
2014-01-06 02:01:05 PM  
1 vote:

Pincy: Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


WHEN GAY CHILDREN GROW UP THEY CAN MARRY OTHER GROWN UP GAY CHILDREN, SO CHILDREN ARE GOOD.
2014-01-06 01:51:14 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.


Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.
2014-01-06 01:49:35 PM  
1 vote:
What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?

Depends on what Justice Kennedy has for lunch the day he hears oral arguments.  If it's Tikka Masala, forget it.  (Seriously, if Kennedy sticks to the precedent in Windsor, there's no way he won't go for that argument.)

I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.

Not necessarily.  It did take 41 years, though.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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