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.

(Courier-Journal)   Judge strikes down Kentucky's magical barrier against out of state gay marriages   (courier-journal.com) divider line 67
    More: Cool, Kentucky, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal judges, separation barrier, Defense of Marriage Act  
•       •       •

3764 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2014 at 5:53 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 01:15:59 PM
Local clerics are furiously rolling dice to reverse the ruling.
 
2014-02-12 01:28:36 PM

James!: Local clerics are furiously rolling dice to reverse the ruling.


Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!
 
2014-02-12 01:39:40 PM
"If a state like Utah were ever to legalize polygamy, Kentucky would be forced to recognize it under this decision," Cothran added.

If Ifs, ands, or buts were candy or nuts, you're a farking tool.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:35 PM
I hate the way the Federal government restricts the way states can discriminate against gays. What's next...we have to treat brown people, and women-folk the same, too? Balderdash!
 
2014-02-12 01:53:53 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Balderdash!


Nice word. That doesn't get used enough nowadays consarn it!
 
2014-02-12 02:15:40 PM
Kentucky giveth; Kansas taketh away.
 
2014-02-12 02:18:35 PM
Is the judge a wizard?
 
2014-02-12 02:23:59 PM
As long as I can still drag gay people behind my pick-up truck, I'm happy.
 
2014-02-12 02:25:44 PM

Marcus Aurelius: As long as I can still drag gay people behind my pick-up truck, I'm happy.


As long as they're a consenting adult
 
2014-02-12 02:55:37 PM
I think we're seeing the wider implication of Windsor v. U.S. as it is reverberating through the lower courts.
 
2014-02-12 03:49:09 PM
Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me the Constitution still has a "Full Faith and Credit" clause?

What manner of sorcery is this?
 
2014-02-12 04:51:53 PM

Gonz: Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me the Constitution still has a "Full Faith and Credit" clause?

What manner of sorcery is this?


The manner of sorcery where the judge never even reached the FF&C clause and instead invalidated the state constitutional amendment based on the 14th Amendment?

/the FF&C clause also likely wouldn't apply here, as DoMA's clause 2 is still valid and is likely constitutional under that clause (although it is also likely unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th amendments)
 
2014-02-12 04:53:49 PM

kbronsito: Is the judge a wizard?


Well, he puts on a robe, i bet.
 
2014-02-12 04:54:34 PM

Gonz: Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me the Constitution still has a "Full Faith and Credit" clause?

What manner of sorcery is this?


i.imgur.com
/The best kind
 
2014-02-12 04:59:05 PM
Pictured: US Supreme Court strikes down Kentucky law.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-12 05:21:04 PM
I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.
 
2014-02-12 05:34:22 PM
I love how so many judges across the nation are suddenly discovering the equal protection clause. It's like it was hidden behind a secret door or something.
 
2014-02-12 05:58:26 PM
Now to take care of North Mississippi.
 
2014-02-12 06:02:31 PM
Billy Joe and Emma Sue are a Kentucky couple, and one day they decide to get hitched. So, both clans come out and do the hillbilly wedding thing--shotguns, whiskey, the whole deal.

On the wedding night, Billy Joe takes Emma Sue out to his father's hunting cabin for their honeymoon. As he's carrying her over the threshold, Emma Sue leans over and whispers in his ear, "Billy Joe, I'm a little nervous. You know, I ain't never been with a man before." Billy Joe's eyes bug out, and he drops Emma Sue right on her ass. He shoots out the door and runs all the way back to his family's house.

After he opens the door, exhausted with the effort, his father says to him, "Son, shouldn't you and Emma Sue be makin' the marriage official right about now?" Billy Joe replies, "I'm sorry, Paw, but I can't marry that girl." "Well, why not?" says his dad. "She said she ain't never been with a man afore." At this, Billy Joe's father nods his head gravely and pats his son on the shoulder, saying "Son, you done the right thing. If that girl ain't good enough for her family, she ain't good enough for ours!"
 
2014-02-12 06:21:58 PM

Weaver95: I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.


As Christians who abide by the teachings of Jesus to love one another as he loved them and to obey the government, I'm sure they'll be nothing less than tolerant, patient, and loving.
 
2014-02-12 06:24:36 PM

fusillade762: I love how so many judges across the nation are suddenly discovering the equal protection clause. It's like it was hidden behind a secret door or something.


They were all waiting for some other chump to take a swing and see if they got beat down by an appellate court.
 
2014-02-12 06:34:03 PM
they are racist because they are afraid
 
2014-02-12 06:36:18 PM
www.newswise.com
 
2014-02-12 06:39:02 PM
Gay bullies will be moving to Kentucky?
 
2014-02-12 06:40:09 PM

James!: Local clerics are furiously rolling dice to reverse the ruling.


Dispel Adjudication?

Phelps's Disjunction?

Protection From Gays 10' Radius (Known as Magic Circle Against Gays in 3rd Edition and later)
 
2014-02-12 06:51:03 PM

scottydoesntknow: Sin_City_Superhero: Balderdash!

Nice word. That doesn't get used enough nowadays consarn it!


I was recently compelled to use it at the haberdashery when they claimed to have run out of my favourite shoehorns, Jew's harps, and assorted notions.
 
2014-02-12 07:06:20 PM
In another 20 years, this will all seem completely silly to us. We'll wonder how people could have been so up in arms over something so benign.

Either that, or we'll be hunting rats and trying to find buildings that weren't destroyed, with lower levels of radiation, in which to hide from mutants and anarchist raiders.

`One of those two scenarios, I'm sure.
 
2014-02-12 07:07:14 PM

capt.hollister: scottydoesntknow: Sin_City_Superhero: Balderdash!

Nice word. That doesn't get used enough nowadays consarn it!

I was recently compelled to use it at the haberdashery when they claimed to have run out of my favourite shoehorns, Jew's harps, and assorted notions.


You say that as if shoehorns are a thing of the past.
 
2014-02-12 07:48:20 PM

Gonz: Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me the Constitution still has a "Full Faith and Credit" clause?

What manner of sorcery is this?


He's a sorcerer!
 
2014-02-12 08:02:13 PM

Weaver95: I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.


So far, most of them have been, surprisingly.  The non-evangelical Christian community has been pretty much 100% in favor of the ruling.  Granted, I live in Louisville which (shakes popcorn) isn't really part of Kentucky, as most Kentuckians see it.
 
2014-02-12 08:05:04 PM

FitzShivering: Weaver95: I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.

So far, most of them have been, surprisingly.  The non-evangelical Christian community has been pretty much 100% in favor of the ruling.  Granted, I live in Louisville which (shakes popcorn) isn't really part of Kentucky, as most Kentuckians see it.


that's good.  lets hope the derp brigade stays in the background.
 
2014-02-12 08:15:04 PM
FTA: In the 23-page opinion, Heyburn said the state and groups defending the amendment offered no evidence that recognizing same-sex unions would harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively.

How many times is this now that a judge has pointed out that there is no evidence of harm from same-sex marriage?  10, 15?  When will the homophobes stop using that argument?
 
2014-02-12 08:20:25 PM

Weaver95: FitzShivering: Weaver95: I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.

So far, most of them have been, surprisingly.  The non-evangelical Christian community has been pretty much 100% in favor of the ruling.  Granted, I live in Louisville which (shakes popcorn) isn't really part of Kentucky, as most Kentuckians see it.

that's good.  lets hope the derp brigade stays in the background.


Me, I'll admit I'm waiting for the inevitable shiatstorm from that percentage of Louisville that is very firmly within the Derp Brigade (seeing as, well, I'm an actual walkaway from the very heart of the Derp Brigade in that city, and in particular a Den of Derp and Herpery that happened to be the de facto headquarters of the state AFA branch that essentially ghostwrote KY's DOMA and the confusingly-worded way it ended up on the state ballot).  Assuming, of course, that they're not too busy with having done OTHER Very Dumb Things that could lead to Very Interesting Times In The Chinese Sense for them...

Unfortunately for the local Derp Brigade, though, most folks are coming around to the idea that it's not really going to hurt anything in the long run if two guys or two gals can get married.  Maybe if I am very lucky, we'll end up about forty years hence with two guys having a cute kid they're raising, kind of like how multiracial families are actually accepted here in Louisville for the most part.  I can hope, at least...
 
2014-02-12 08:34:40 PM

FitzShivering: Weaver95: I'm sure that local evangelicals will be good natured and understanding on this issue.

So far, most of them have been, surprisingly.  The non-evangelical Christian community has been pretty much 100% in favor of the ruling.  Granted, I live in Louisville which (shakes popcorn) isn't really part of Kentucky, as most Kentuckians see it.


I still haven't heard much on how this wasn't discovered in there a hundred years ago, the state and federal constitutions aren't all that long.  I wouldn't really care about the entire gay marriage debate except that it hasn't been a debate in a long time.  Once the legal jujitsu was figured out all efforts at dialogue and swaying the public stopped and it became a game of finding the right judge to go along with it.  It's become just another example of how laws don't mean jack unless you've got the juice with the powers to get them carried out your way.  Kelo showed that their is no real protection against seizing private property, NSA stuff shows there's not protections about search and seizures.  ACA has turned into a cluster of unbelievable proportions highlighting how the bureaucracies will do anything they want no matter the plain letter of the law.  The administration has declared that if you're an American out of the country and they think you're tied to terror and it might be hard to arrange your arrest they can just drop a bomb on you.

The Christians I know don't really give a crap about gay marriage but are not looking forward to the drawn out fights about to happen over fairness ordinances like the bakeries and photographers out west.  I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

/Live in Louisville, moved when the taxes kept going up, services kept getting worse, and Mayor Fischers idea for fixing things was to get a law passed so that he could condemn houses in the city that have long grass as abandoned property.  He's not been as bad as I expected but he is on board with the 55K degree's thing which is moronic when the city already has a glut of degreed baristas and waitresses.
 
2014-02-12 08:41:58 PM

ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.


Did you point out to them that they're idiots?
 
2014-02-12 08:48:44 PM
Couldn't find the sick tag ?
 
2014-02-12 08:53:41 PM

RottenEggs: Couldn't find the sick tag ?


Your tears are delicious.  CRY MOAR
 
2014-02-12 08:54:16 PM

ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?


Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.
 
2014-02-12 08:55:41 PM

ricbach229: The Christians I know don't really give a crap about gay marriage but are not looking forward to the drawn out fights about to happen over fairness ordinances like the bakeries and photographers out west.  I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.


Well except that will not happen, a church is religious institution protected by the  First Amendment, Where as a business is a public entity that must abide by the  rules and laws it voluntarily agreed to when it applied for the  various license and permits required to serve the  public.

I find the  bakers lawsuit to be as asinine, it is like a Jew or Muslim suing Jimmy Dean because he was hired to butcher hogs for them.
 
2014-02-12 08:59:15 PM

ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.


They're idiots because they think somebody is trying to make churches perform gay marriage.  NOBODY has ever suggested that.  It's never been proposed.  Period.  In any case, your 'fairness ordinance' doesn't apply because churches are not public places.
 
2014-02-12 09:06:26 PM

Silverstaff: Protection From Gays 10' Radius


* casts Bigby's Gay Hand *
 
2014-02-12 09:09:15 PM

Azlefty: ricbach229: The Christians I know don't really give a crap about gay marriage but are not looking forward to the drawn out fights about to happen over fairness ordinances like the bakeries and photographers out west.  I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Well except that will not happen, a church is religious institution protected by the  First Amendment, Where as a business is a public entity that must abide by the  rules and laws it voluntarily agreed to when it applied for the  various license and permits required to serve the  public.

I find the  bakers lawsuit to be as asinine, it is like a Jew or Muslim suing Jimmy Dean because he was hired to butcher hogs for them.


The bakers suit I'm talking about is because the baker is a Christian based business and turned down the business of doing a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued the baker saying he must bake the cake under the fairness ordinance.

And so what on the first amendment.  There's a huge lawsuit going on now because the administration is trying to make an order of nuns buy insurance with abortion coverage which is very much against Catholic doctrine.

If I were a gay rights advocate, I'd be pushing like hell to get large buildings like churches and commercial space lumped in together in ordinances as I possibly could.  Something as simple as "all buildings with an occupancy greater than 50 persons must comply with state fire codes and city ordinances to obtain a occupancy permit" would be all it would take for a halfway sober lawyer to start with.
 
2014-02-12 09:26:32 PM

Aquapope: ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.

They're idiots because they think somebody is trying to make churches perform gay marriage.  NOBODY has ever suggested that.  It's never been proposed.  Period.  In any case, your 'fairness ordinance' doesn't apply because churches are not public places.


To be fair, I do seem to remember reading about a gay couple somewhere going to court ( and possibly winning?) for the right to marry in a gazebo or a picnic shelter or some such thing that was owned by a church and where that church performed  weddings.
 
2014-02-12 10:14:30 PM

ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.


Uh, no.

The Constitution Does Not Work That Way!

Seriously.

There is a WORLD of difference between, say, telling a bakery they can't discriminate against same sex couples in providing a commercial service, and trying to dictate to a religion who they must perform a sacrament for.  That is a huge, gigantic First Amendment issues (Free Exercise clause specifically).

The government can't force a church to marry a same-sex couple any more than they can force the Catholic church to ordain women as priests.  There is a gigantic, and pretty dang ironclad, constitutional protection there for the actual exercise of religious worship.

Note, I said religious worship.  These religious groups and corporations run by religious people (Hobby Lobby) that want to use religious rules in hiring people to perform commercial tasks unrelated to worship and religious practices is completely different.

The movement for marriage equality has NEVER been about forcing any minister or church to perform a marriage they object to.  Guess what, they don't have to, there are already PLENTY of officiants for same-sex marriages who are willing to do so, including religious officiants.

. . .THIS is their objection, really?

/Divine Facepalm
 
2014-02-12 10:20:12 PM

No Such Agency: Silverstaff: Protection From Gays 10' Radius

* casts Bigby's Gay Hand *


Bigby's Limp Wrist
 
2014-02-12 10:20:28 PM

ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.


When's the last time the government forced a Catholic Church to marry to divorced people? When's the last time the government forced a Catholic Church to marry to Protestants?

Wasn't it in Kentucky that a church recently refused to marry an interracial couple? Did the government step in and force them to perform the marriage?

Yeah, that's why they're idiots.
 
2014-02-12 10:20:51 PM

wellreadneck: Aquapope: ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.

They're idiots because they think somebody is trying to make churches perform gay marriage.  NOBODY has ever suggested that.  It's never been proposed.  Period.  In any case, your 'fairness ordinance' doesn't apply because churches are not public places.

To be fair, I do seem to remember reading about a gay couple somewhere going to court ( and possibly winning?) for the right to marry in a gazebo or a picnic shelter or some such thing that was owned by a church and where that church performed  weddings.


Problem was that they were violating an agreement they made the local government.

Also, a church and a separate facility owned by a church and used for commercial purposes are very different things.
 
2014-02-12 10:23:35 PM

ricbach229: Azlefty: ricbach229: The Christians I know don't really give a crap about gay marriage but are not looking forward to the drawn out fights about to happen over fairness ordinances like the bakeries and photographers out west.  I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Well except that will not happen, a church is religious institution protected by the  First Amendment, Where as a business is a public entity that must abide by the  rules and laws it voluntarily agreed to when it applied for the  various license and permits required to serve the  public.

I find the  bakers lawsuit to be as asinine, it is like a Jew or Muslim suing Jimmy Dean because he was hired to butcher hogs for them.

The bakers suit I'm talking about is because the baker is a Christian based business and turned down the business of doing a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued the baker saying he must bake the cake under the fairness ordinance.

And so what on the first amendment.  There's a huge lawsuit going on now because the administration is trying to make an order of nuns buy insurance with abortion coverage which is very much against Catholic doctrine.

If I were a gay rights advocate, I'd be pushing like hell to get large buildings like churches and commercial space lumped in together in ordinances as I possibly could.  Something as simple as "all buildings with an occupancy greater than 50 persons must comply with state fire codes and city ordinances to obtain a occupancy permit" would be all it would take for a halfway sober lawyer to start with.


That's all rather...silly is the nicest word I can think of. Why would gay people want to get married in a church that didn't want to marry them?

This sounds more like projecting.
 
2014-02-12 10:28:08 PM

dywed88: wellreadneck: Aquapope: ricbach229: ciberido: ricbach229: I have heard a few say they aren't sure if their church will stay open if it's declared that they have to perform gay marriages.

Did you point out to them that they're idiots?

Feel free to tell me, how are they idiots?  All it would take is a fairness ordinance saying places open to the public can't discriminate on sexual preferences when deciding to allow someone to use their facilities.

They're idiots because they think somebody is trying to make churches perform gay marriage.  NOBODY has ever suggested that.  It's never been proposed.  Period.  In any case, your 'fairness ordinance' doesn't apply because churches are not public places.

To be fair, I do seem to remember reading about a gay couple somewhere going to court ( and possibly winning?) for the right to marry in a gazebo or a picnic shelter or some such thing that was owned by a church and where that church performed  weddings.

Problem was that they were violating an agreement they made the local government.

Also, a church and a separate facility owned by a church and used for commercial purposes are very different things.


A church renting out its building for a wedding  to a couple who aren't members might possibly be considered a use for commercial purposes, depending on how you look at it.
 
2014-02-12 10:30:06 PM

ArcadianRefugee: capt.hollister: scottydoesntknow: Sin_City_Superhero: Balderdash!

Nice word. That doesn't get used enough nowadays consarn it!

I was recently compelled to use it at the haberdashery when they claimed to have run out of my favourite shoehorns, Jew's harps, and assorted notions.

You say that as if shoehorns are a thing of the past.


Not a bit of it, hence my compulsion to optimistically sally forth to said boutique and inform the proprietor of my need. Imagine my discomfiture upon being informed that his shop was currently uncontaminated by any horns for shoes and would remain so for the immediately foreseeable future and beyond.  Henceforth, if I were to heed his musings, it would be necessary for me to insinuate foot in footwear without resorting to any extraneous tools.

Fortunately, one can always bite the bullet, as it were, and join the working masses at one of Mr. Walton's numerous places of business. While said emporiums are not normally attended by gentlemen of good breeding, sometimes needs must and, after all, they cannot be said to be entirely devoid of shoehorns and other assorted haberdasheries.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 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