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.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   U.S. government to recognize Utah gay marriages even if Utah won't   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 62
    More: Ironic, U.S. government, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

2670 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 3:49 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 03:51:00 PM
Perhaps it is the case that Utah has the prosopagnosia. LAUGHTER OL!
 
2014-01-10 03:54:10 PM
Oh, this should be good.
 
2014-01-10 03:55:00 PM
This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.
 
2014-01-10 03:56:10 PM

Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.


I see what you did there...
 
2014-01-10 03:57:47 PM

Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.


stenglelaw.com
 
2014-01-10 03:57:48 PM
I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.
 
2014-01-10 03:58:04 PM

Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.


Wat
 
2014-01-10 04:01:00 PM
media.tumblr.com

"Then I told SCOTUS to EABOD"
 
2014-01-10 04:01:32 PM
Jews don't recognize Jesus as Messiah. Protestants don't recognize the Pope as the head of the church. And Mormons don't recognize each other in the liquor store.
 
2014-01-10 04:02:25 PM

onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.


States don't have rights, they have powers. Read the Constitution.
 
2014-01-10 04:02:34 PM

onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.



0/10
 
2014-01-10 04:02:43 PM
Yes, but when will they Redneckognize? Or whatever the fark that fat kid says.
 
2014-01-10 04:04:12 PM

onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.


It's almost like it's the 1860s all over again.
 
2014-01-10 04:04:22 PM

zeroman987: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

States don't have rights, they have powers. Read the Constitution.


The constitution grants powers to the federal government, not states. That is what state constitutions are for. Did you fail 5th grade civics?
 
2014-01-10 04:04:27 PM

Welcome to UTAH

The hate state.

 
2014-01-10 04:05:26 PM

studebaker hoch: Welcome to UTAHThe hate state.


Obama was against gay marriage as recently as 2010. What a hate monger.
 
2014-01-10 04:06:05 PM

MyRandomName: zeroman987: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

States don't have rights, they have powers. Read the Constitution.

The constitution grants powers to the federal government, not states. That is what state constitutions are for. Did you fail 5th grade civics?



10th Amendment says what
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-10 04:08:40 PM
How about we stop recognizing states who refuse to make sense?
 
2014-01-10 04:10:08 PM
You can't take away a right of the people after you give it to them, because that would do irreparable harm to those who exercised that right. Isn't that what invalidated California's same-sex marriage ban? Why wouldn't the same principle stand in Utah?

...

Well that was a Circuit court decision in a different circuit. SCOTUS just refused the appeal due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. Still nearly the same situation, though.
 
2014-01-10 04:10:33 PM

veedeevadeevoodee: [media.tumblr.com image 300x191]

"Then I told SCOTUS to EABOD"


Not really. SCOTUS ruling halts gay marriage in Utah, and that means involving new marriages. Meanwhile the federal government will recognize the gay marriages that happened before SCOTUS halted gay marriage in Utah, thanks to SCOTUS previous ruling on allowing federal benefits to gay married people.
 
2014-01-10 04:11:07 PM

onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.


Rights are exclusively a property of individuals. States are a collective; the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.
 
2014-01-10 04:12:31 PM

gja: How about we stop recognizing states who refuse to make sense?


This. Dump half of them. They want their evangelical theocracy with no taxes, no government and nothing civilized? Fine. Have fun. Meanwhile, the first-world part of the country can actually begin running a country like grown-ups without their derp, The redneck right is wrong about everything, has always been wrong about everything, and is even proud of being wrong. They're nothing but a nuisance to intelligent people.

 Better off without 'em.
 
2014-01-10 04:14:38 PM

menschenfresser: gja: How about we stop recognizing states who refuse to make sense?

This. Dump half of them. They want their evangelical theocracy with no taxes, no government and nothing civilized? Fine. Have fun. Meanwhile, the first-world part of the country can actually begin running a country like grown-ups without their derp, The redneck right is wrong about everything, has always been wrong about everything, and is even proud of being wrong. They're nothing but a nuisance to intelligent people.

 Better off without 'em.


The jackasses shouldn't get to keep American land, though. I'm sure some country has some empty land they could have. They're bootstrappy enough to survive in Siberia or the Sahara, right?
 
2014-01-10 04:18:23 PM

LordJiro: menschenfresser: gja: How about we stop recognizing states who refuse to make sense?

This. Dump half of them. They want their evangelical theocracy with no taxes, no government and nothing civilized? Fine. Have fun. Meanwhile, the first-world part of the country can actually begin running a country like grown-ups without their derp, The redneck right is wrong about everything, has always been wrong about everything, and is even proud of being wrong. They're nothing but a nuisance to intelligent people.

 Better off without 'em.

The jackasses shouldn't get to keep American land, though. I'm sure some country has some empty land they could have. They're bootstrappy enough to survive in Siberia or the Sahara, right?


Doggone right they are, and they can be assured that there'll be no meddlesome "gubmint" there to ruin their lives any further. It's a win/win.
 
2014-01-10 04:27:20 PM
Slippery slope...
 
2014-01-10 04:27:31 PM

Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.



i44.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-10 04:27:50 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: MyRandomName: zeroman987: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

States don't have rights, they have powers. Read the Constitution.

The constitution grants powers to the federal government, not states. That is what state constitutions are for. Did you fail 5th grade civics?


10th Amendment says what


It says all powers not given to the federal government are held by the states or the people. Therefore, the people, through the federal constitution, granted some powers to the federal government, and the rest to the states and the people, subject to the supremacy clause.

In other words, the states have the power to draft their own constitutions, and give themselves powers, as long as it doesn't conflict with the federal constitution.

So, you can have even free-er speech in Illinois, but you can't have a state religion.
 
2014-01-10 04:28:08 PM

onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.


Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.
 
2014-01-10 04:35:20 PM

Mikey1969: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.


Can you please point to the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to pass a federal marriage law, such that one could supersede state marriage law?
 
2014-01-10 04:37:26 PM
One interesting implication from this is that there will be couples who are considered married for Federal purposes (census, taxation, contribution limits, etc.), but who cannot legally divorce, because Utah won't recognize their marriage in order to dissolve it, and other states require residency before they can grant divorces.
 
2014-01-10 04:40:38 PM

zimbach: You can't take away a right of the people after you give it to them, because that would do irreparable harm to those who exercised that right. Isn't that what invalidated California's same-sex marriage ban? Why wouldn't the same principle stand in Utah?

...

Well that was a Circuit court decision in a different circuit. SCOTUS just refused the appeal due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. Still nearly the same situation, though.


As I understand it, the Appeal is being allowed because the judge ruled too broadly...

As far as taking away rights that were granted, that's why the people who got married between when the ban was lifted and when the temporary stay was in place will continue to be married. It's the same thing as when a state abolishes the death penalty then reinstates it, the previous people on death row get their sentence commuted, but don't get sentenced to death all over again, and anyone who gets convicted after it is reinstated will still get the death penalty, regardless of their status during the time it was abolished.
 
2014-01-10 04:42:13 PM

Theaetetus: One interesting implication from this is that there will be couples who are considered married for Federal purposes (census, taxation, contribution limits, etc.), but who cannot legally divorce, because Utah won't recognize their marriage in order to dissolve it, and other states require residency before they can grant divorces.


So what you are saying is Utah and the federal government are coming up with new ways to lower the countries divorce rate?
 
2014-01-10 04:43:48 PM

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.

Can you please point to the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to pass a federal marriage law, such that one could supersede state marriage law?



Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

 In other words, if the federal government decides that a law is unconstitutional, they have ultimate say over whether it can be enforced. They can also determine if discrimination is going on and pass laws to ensure that the discrimination stops.
 
2014-01-10 04:43:50 PM

Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.


Sir, I have it on good authority from a previous thread that SSM promotes masturbation.

QED.
 
2014-01-10 04:46:01 PM
has anyone ever just tried going to utah with some bronze tools, and demonstrating that they are better than stone tools? i mean, it might not get things right, but at least it would be some progress.
 
2014-01-10 04:47:04 PM

MyRandomName: zeroman987: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

States don't have rights, they have powers. Read the Constitution.

The constitution grants powers to the federal government, not states. That is what state constitutions are for. Did you fail 5th grade civics?


i389.photobucket.com
I was told there would be no Civics.
 
2014-01-10 04:48:50 PM
So do the gay couples in Utah get to enjoy the benefits of Polygamy also?
//Just curious
 
2014-01-10 04:49:56 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.

Sir, I have it on good authority from a previous thread that SSM promotes masturbation.

QED.


Counterpoint: an excessive stray cat population.
 
2014-01-10 04:50:11 PM

stampylives: has anyone ever just tried going to utah with some bronze tools, and demonstrating that they are better than stone tools? i mean, it might not get things right, but at least it would be some progress.


I thought Mitt was the bronze tool from Utah.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-10 04:52:58 PM

Mikey1969: Theaetetus: Mikey1969: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.

Can you please point to the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to pass a federal marriage law, such that one could supersede state marriage law?


Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

 In other words, if the federal government decides that a law is unconstitutional, they have ultimate say over whether it can be enforced. They can also determine if discrimination is going on and pass laws to ensure that the discrimination stops.


In other words, "no, Theaetetus, I can't tell you where in Article I it says Congress gets the power to determine marriage laws, because it doesn't exist. Accordingly, when I said that 'federal  law supersedes state law', I was confused because I didn't realize that there isn't a federal law that's superseding a state law here. I now understand that the Supremacy Clause really doesn't apply here, and instead, I should have referred to the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process."

No problem, Mikey, and I'm happy to help.
 
2014-01-10 04:53:19 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Dimensio: This is beneficial to the state's argument against same-sex marriage. While the state is mitigating the damage that these marriages will cause through not recognizing them, the recognition of the federal government is sure to cause some measure of harm on its own. This will create more data for the state to use to show that same-sex marriage is harmful and thus a ban on it is warranted.

I still, however, do not understand why the state did not cite the harm that must have already occurred in other places (such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa) as a result of legal same-sex marriage in their response to the initial legal challenge. If their arguments are of any intellectual merit, such harm must logically be readily demonstrable.

Sir, I have it on good authority from a previous thread that SSM promotes endorses masturbation.

QED.


I buggered the meme.

NTTAWWT
 
2014-01-10 04:54:14 PM

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.

Can you please point to the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to pass a federal marriage law, such that one could supersede state marriage law?


They don't have to pass a federal marriage law, and in fact, probably couldn't. See the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, has this power called judicial review. When a state law is alleged to have violated federal law, the courts review the law to determine if there is a conflict.

Here, the conflict is whether a law excluding a class of people from accessing a benefit bestowed on another class of people violates the right, enumerated in the 14th amendment, that ensures people will receive equal treatment under the law. If it does violate that right, then the state law is not valid because a state may enumerate rights in addition to those enumerated in the federal constitution, but it cannot pass laws that violate those rights.

Think of two circles representing varying degrees of equal protection (or due process, or freedom of speech.) The smaller circle is always the "federal" right because that is the baseline for the state enumerated right.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-10 05:06:17 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Sir, I have it on good authority from a previous thread that SSM promotes masturbation.


Nonsense. If anything man-woman marriage promotes it if for no other reason the witch cuts you off, or you just can't stand the thought of even looking at her anymore.
 
2014-01-10 05:13:27 PM

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: Theaetetus: Mikey1969: onearmedninja: I guess the federal government is tired of just taking our rights and now they are working on taking states rights also.

Except that the Constitution states that federal law supersedes state law.

Can you please point to the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to pass a federal marriage law, such that one could supersede state marriage law?


Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

 In other words, if the federal government decides that a law is unconstitutional, they have ultimate say over whether it can be enforced. They can also determine if discrimination is going on and pass laws to ensure that the discrimination stops.

In other words, "no, Theaetetus, I can't tell you where in Article I it says Congress gets the power to determine marriage laws, because it doesn't exist. Accordingly, when I said that 'federal  law supersedes state law', I was confused because I didn't realize that there isn't a federal law that's superseding a state law here. I now understand that the Supremacy Clause really doesn't apply here, and instead, I should have referred to the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process."

No problem, Mikey, and I'm happy to help.


Hey, look everybody, this guy thinks the federal government just passed a new marriage law instead of a judge ruling a state law unconstitutional! He thinks federal judges can't make rulings on state laws unless the specific word that the law applies to is in the constitution! Let's laugh now about how confused he is!
 
2014-01-10 05:17:35 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Sir, I have it on good authority from a previous thread that SSM promotes masturbation.

QED.


SSM controversy sure makes fundies stare and jerk off furiously, they must love it.
And then there's the repressed fantasy that gives 'em a chub on the rebound. Double win.
 
2014-01-10 05:24:18 PM
Ah Utah.....where "separation of church and state" has apparently never been heard of.  So very proud to live in this backward ass state......ugh.
 
2014-01-10 05:37:52 PM

studebaker hoch: Welcome to UTAHThe hate state.


On behalf of the state of Oklahoma, I demand a recount.
 
2014-01-10 05:47:26 PM
And Baptists can't fark standing up
 
2014-01-10 06:14:23 PM
MyRandomName

Obama was against gay marriage as recently as 2010.

What a hate monger.


I don't care when someone grows up as long as they've done it.
 
2014-01-10 06:16:02 PM
Fetch the golden plates!
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report