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 13
    More: Ironic, U.S. government, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

2676 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 3:49 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-10 04:01:32 PM  
10 votes:
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 04:50:11 PM  
6 votes:

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 04:46:01 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:51:00 PM  
2 votes:
Perhaps it is the case that Utah has the prosopagnosia. LAUGHTER OL!
2014-01-10 07:45:31 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Yeah, but then they'd apply for (and get) foreign aid from the US that so cruelly oppressed them by allowing them to secede.
2014-01-10 05:37:52 PM  
1 votes:

studebaker hoch: Welcome to UTAHThe hate state.


On behalf of the state of Oklahoma, I demand a recount.
2014-01-10 05:13:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:04:27 PM  
1 votes:

Welcome to UTAH

The hate state.

2014-01-10 04:02:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:01:00 PM  
1 votes:
media.tumblr.com

"Then I told SCOTUS to EABOD"
2014-01-10 03:55:00 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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