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.

(CNN) NewsFlash Percentage of things coming out of Texas that are steers drops sharply   (cnn.com) divider line 478
    More: NewsFlash, Texas, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal courts  
•       •       •

22985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-26 06:08:18 PM  

tlars699: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.

Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.

[img.fark.net image 247x204]

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.

You realize that a roller isn't a brush in any sense of the word, right?

Seriously, Cameron? You're totally trollin' now.


Oh, I'm trolling that for sure, cause he could've at least used a brush. That's just laziness on his part.
 
2014-02-26 06:08:54 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


You must be one of those Pro Life people.
 And lesbians DO have the capability to procreate.
All of their offspring would be girls, but you can extract DNA from one egg, and put it into another egg.
(I mean isn't that how one of those fertilization methods work, if the dude can't make sperm?)

So what now? Some Gays can procreate.

Only a matter of time until the dudes can use a donated egg- extract the female DNA, replace with their own X molecule, and "procreate" in the manner you suggest.

Your argument is hence invalid.
 
2014-02-26 06:09:49 PM  

cchris_39: but it is a prophetic certainty that Christians will be forced to set aside their faith.


What the fark does 'prophetic certainty' mean?
 
2014-02-26 06:10:43 PM  

cchris_39: The Bible promises that you will not be able to do business without taking the mark.

Not saying that this is it, but it is a prophetic certainty that Christians will be forced to set aside their faith.

/wrap your heads around that, atheists


Well I certainly hope that there aren't any born-agains in the seafood business. Otherwise that would mean the apocalypse!
 
2014-02-26 06:10:44 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Maud Dib: mayIFark: Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.

[sports-kings.com image 800x512]

U mad, bro?

Yes.

/Michigander
//why the fark can't we get our heads out of our asses faster?


Shouldn't Ontario rub off on Michigan? It seems like the two jurisdictions are nothing like each other when it comes to politics. Michigan is really conservative.
 
2014-02-26 06:10:44 PM  
SCIENCE!!
 
2014-02-26 06:12:22 PM  

Maul555: eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?

Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...   Greg Abbot has been suing the shiat out of the federal government for Texas for years, and that is what I like.  He is pro Gun rights, Pro State Rights, and loves to push back against the Feds.  That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas, and as soon as a weak governor gets into power, we will have a hell of a time rolling back the shiat waiting to fall on us.


You sound like a low information voter who's knowledge of history and constitutional law is weak.
 
2014-02-26 06:12:46 PM  

ontariolightning: Shouldn't Ontario rub off on Michigan? It seems like the two jurisdictions are nothing like each other when it comes to politics. Michigan is really conservative.


Nobody cares about western Ontario.
 
2014-02-26 06:12:50 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: demaL-demaL-yeH: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

By that "reasoning", you can forbid the elderly and infertile from marrying.
Now with bonus bannination of contraceptives!

Marriage is a civil contract, einstien, and it's mostly about property, inheritance, with a side of financial and legal responsibility for the care of children.

Ask any doctor, there is no 100% reliable test for fertility.

Yes, marriage is a civil contract and is about the things you mention, but you would have none of those without procreation.


Supreme Court says you're dead wrong, reasoning-challenged.
 
2014-02-26 06:14:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Shouldn't Ontario rub off on Michigan? It seems like the two jurisdictions are nothing like each other when it comes to politics. Michigan is really conservative.

Nobody cares about western Ontario.


Cdn government cares enough to buy a whole new bridge into Detroit.
 
2014-02-26 06:14:36 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time


"Yep. There is no more "united states" "

Their tears of impotent rage. Such delicious. Very satisfy.
 
2014-02-26 06:14:36 PM  

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.

Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sure, the liberals on the Court wanted a higher standard. But that's hardly gutting. If some guy gets arrested for BS reasons in order to execute the search, this ruling doesn't protect it.

What was the exigent emergency that prevented them from getting a martherfarking warrant after being denied permission?
Was the nearest doughnut shop getting low on chocolate croissants?
/Lazy, lazy farkwits.
//If there were a hell, they'd be reserving a special place in it for Alito.

That's beside the point. The issue is whether this qualifies as a "complete gutting." It doesn't. It moved the line to make life more difficult for people who don't even deny their own arrestability.


No, it meant that cops can search without permission or a warrant and still use the poisoned fruit against  you.
 
2014-02-26 06:15:24 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage


No it is not.  Marriage is not at all required for two consenting humans to engage in sexual relations or to procreate.

As to the rest of your post, I'll just sum it up thusly:  lolwut?
 
2014-02-26 06:18:54 PM  

ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Shouldn't Ontario rub off on Michigan? It seems like the two jurisdictions are nothing like each other when it comes to politics. Michigan is really conservative.

Nobody cares about western Ontario.

Cdn government cares enough to buy a whole new bridge into Detroit.


That's why no one cares about western Ontario; they actually want to go to Detroit.
 
2014-02-26 06:20:13 PM  

riverwalk barfly: /married for twenty years and no children by choice.  So.


I...can't help but to get this nagging feeling you live near US 64 in Bixby or near the Arkansas in Jenks...
 
2014-02-26 06:22:02 PM  
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage

I bet Abbott won't be Loving the Supreme Court precedent marriage equality proponents will cite...
 
2014-02-26 06:23:10 PM  

ariseatex: If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.


While I have zero problems with lesbians and I get the mechanics of what they're doing, I do find Louis CK's incomprehension to be be hilarious.  "Lesbian sex is wrong.  Not morally or ethically.  Geometrically.  It's like rubbing the mouths of two buckets together, it's achieving nothing!"
 
2014-02-26 06:24:20 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


My guess is it's a nod to folks like me who can't make up their goddamn mind if they prefer rod or fish.

/I don't need any abbreviation, thanks.
//But appreciated..
 
2014-02-26 06:25:44 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas

You mean regulations like keeping a fertilizer plant from killing a town?  Those kinds of regulations?

Are those the kinds of regulations you're talking about?  You want to see what lack of regulations looks like? Looks like this:

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

[www.bradblog.com image 252x343]

[www.dallasnews.com image 620x408]

But, if I'm mistaken and you're talking about something completely different, what are the regulations you're referring to?

And, explain, specifically, why the regulations are bad.

/full disclosure requires me to admit that I worked in the agency that oversees the Code of Federal Regulations and I understand how regulations actually work


This needs to be on some kind of "comment of the forever" contest similar to HOTY.
 
2014-02-26 06:27:10 PM  

eraser8: make me some tea: Right now, approximately 20% of the population of the country lives in states where same sex marriage is recognized. Add Texas in and it's almost 30%. Moving right along now...

According to Wiki, 120,856,483 or 38.2% of Americans live in states that embrace marriage equality.  If Texas and the other states that have pro-equality rulings that are not yet in effect were added, more than 50% of Americans would live in pro-equality states.


Oh wow, that figure is up since I last checked! Thanks for the correction.
 
2014-02-26 06:27:19 PM  

Epic Fap Session: cchris_39: but it is a prophetic certainty that Christians will be forced to set aside their faith.

What the fark does 'prophetic certainty' mean?


It means "It is certain, given that you assume the prophecy to be true."  His argument is sound.  IF you are a Christian who believes the prophecies in the Bible must all eventually come to pass, THEN you must logically believe that someday laws will be passed that would require you to violate the rules of Christianity.  I say "WOULD require you" because you may well be dead long before it happens.

The big problem with all the doomsaying about Jesus and the Antichrist and whatnot is that (of course assuming that God is real and the Bible really is the Word of God), Jesus Himself said it was impossible to know when He would come back.

In short, even if you are a Christian who sees all the prophecies of Revelation as literal predictions of events which will actually happen, it does you no good because you CANNOT know when any of it will happen.  Trying to connect any real-world or historical occurrences to events predicted in Revelation is actively defying God.  Which just goes to show many Christians are remarkably ignorant about their* own religion.

*or "our own" I suppose I should say.
 
2014-02-26 06:29:16 PM  

great_tigers: So Farkers in Dallas. Is there anything to do here besides dudes?


You missed Texas Furry Fiesta last weekend.
 
2014-02-26 06:29:44 PM  
A lesbian coworker of mine, many years ago was in a non-recognized relationship with her partner, and wanted to have a child. Another gay coworker volunteered his sperm, she conceived and ended up having twins. Her and her partner raised the two boys together; the sperm donor was involved as well but he died several years ago. The two boys are in college now and IIRC are perfectly normal young men. I don't know how they handled all the legal issues but I'm sure they'd be thrilled once NC's anti-gay law and amendment are overturned.

Btw, my wife and I have no children and have been married for 30 years this June. It was a decision we made early on, so I guess to some people here that means our marriage isn't worth as much legally as those who married to make babies.
 
2014-02-26 06:32:54 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.

Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.

[img.fark.net image 247x204]

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.


No one is saying everyone in Texas is stupid or a bigoted asshat. Take your persecution complex somewhere else.
 
2014-02-26 06:33:33 PM  
Cowboy.


/how am I the first?
//Louder!
 
2014-02-26 06:35:40 PM  

Maul555: fark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...


OK, so let's examine what Texas in your universe looks like.

cdn.zmescience.com Dallas North Tollway

images.nationalgeographic.com Red River

www.dosomething.org
A normal Tuesday on the shore

fark...that...shiat.
 
2014-02-26 06:36:30 PM  

ravenlore: Cowboy.


Didn't I see a film of you eating pudding?
 
2014-02-26 06:37:06 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 06:37:26 PM  

Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.


Well, since Oklahoma and Utah are in the Tenth Circuit (which, if I understand it correctly, is expediting the case), Texas is in the fifth circuit, and Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit (though Virginia's AG refuses to defend the law in court, I read an article that stated that someone still plans to appeal the strikedown of Virginia's ban) this will go to SCOTUS. It's just a matter of which case gets there first at this point. And since SCOTUS has been ruling largely in favor of human rights on this issue, I would be stunned if gay marriage bans lasted more than about 3 years (and I'm being conservatively generous), legally speaking, in this country before SCOTUS declares them unconstitutional on a national scale.

TL;DR--the buckle of the Bible belt should stop trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. This is a human rights issue, not a religious issue. And the religious right is not only wrong, but going to lose this battle in the courts--as they should.
 
2014-02-26 06:37:57 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 06:38:15 PM  

DemonEater: Grand_Moff_Joseph: LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.

If you flipped TX blue, a Dem candidate could theoretically get to 270 with as little as this:

[img.fark.net image 778x480]


Obviously, this is a hypothetical map; I was simply took the 2012 map, added TX, then subtracted as many states as I could while staying above 270.  In reality, any election where TX goes blue will almost surely bring OH, FL, VA, and NV along with it.

You know what that map eerily reminds me of?

This one.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 749x496]

Yeah, good luck in 2016, GOP.


Map ignores the fact that Oregon defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  Nothing new, Oregon just never rewrote their marriage law since it was originally passed well before 1900.
 
2014-02-26 06:39:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it meant that cops can search without permission or a warrant and still use the poisoned fruit against  you.


Nope. It sure doesn't. If it did, then they wouldn't have given all the caveats that it requires. Only Thomas (and you) thinks this means otherwise.
 
2014-02-26 06:40:18 PM  
to all those still replying to me

If it was my wedding, I wouldn't force a religious fundamentalist who despises and hates me, my SO, friends and family, to attend and perform at my wedding

The fundie pops a fuse and the potential for disaster just isn't worth the chance to gloat and rub someone's nose in my lifestyle

and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs
 
2014-02-26 06:41:35 PM  

Syrrh: Getting married is not a strictly religious thing anymore, it is now a civil thing too.


It has always been a civil thing.  religion glommed onto marriage, not the government.  For instance, Christianity didn't even have a religious marriage rite until the 400 or so - and most Christians (meaning born into the faith, lived as an acknowledged Christian by everyone they met, died and were buried with full Christian pomp) were not even married by any service until the 1500s.  Religion created a rite to cover what was a civil act as a way to indicate religion's support for marriages occurring.  The reason Americans see marriage as a religious institution is because the government, in an attempt to reduce workload, decided that if Rev. Chester D. Molester was going to mumble at John and Judy anyway, why not extend to him the authority to do the civil paperwork for them.  And you can see it in how marriage works.  You know what you call a ceremony where Rev. Chester mumbles at John and Judy without a government license? A wasted Saturday afternoon in June.  Know what you call John and Judy getting a government license and having the clerk sign said license? A marriage.  IF the government says you are divorced, you are divorced.  If a church says you are divorced, you are married.  If the government says you are divorced and the church says you aren't, you are divorced.  And it has been this way since at least the Roman farking Empire.

I am third-generation married sans clergy.  My grandparents, my parents, and my wife and I all got hitched without some God-botherer even being present, much less mumbling at us.  Funnily enough, my grandparents and parents (and me at the point I got married) were quite adamant about the ass-in-pew weekend cotillion.  And yet not one clergy or laity, despite knowing exactly the circumstances of our weddings even once intimated that any of us might not be anything but 100% married in all particulars - Hell, my church held a bigger fete for my wife and my semi-elopement than my cousin, who got hitched by the pastor in the church building.

Marriage is not, never has been, and will not be a religious thing - it just has God-botherers hanging on it trying to desperately suck money and obedience from couples like some sort of particularly odious tick.
 
2014-02-26 06:42:30 PM  

Baloo Uriza: DemonEater: Grand_Moff_Joseph: LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.

If you flipped TX blue, a Dem candidate could theoretically get to 270 with as little as this:

[img.fark.net image 778x480]


Obviously, this is a hypothetical map; I was simply took the 2012 map, added TX, then subtracted as many states as I could while staying above 270.  In reality, any election where TX goes blue will almost surely bring OH, FL, VA, and NV along with it.

You know what that map eerily reminds me of?

This one.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 749x496]

Yeah, good luck in 2016, GOP.

Map ignores the fact that Oregon defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  Nothing new, Oregon just never rewrote their marriage law since it was originally passed well before 1900.


Oregon has a constitutional amendment passed in 2004 defining it.

It's in court right now, and signatures are being collected or are about to start being collected to place a repeal on the ballot in November.

Close friends are hoping they can get married and be recognized.

I kinda bummed me out when I realized she is careful to say "Her partner" in mixed company, but calls her partner "Her wife" when with friends.  I hope she feels comfortable to say "Her wife" all the time soon.
 
2014-02-26 06:43:03 PM  

ontariolightning: Cdn government cares enough to buy a whole new bridge into Detroit.


Seems like this is an odd choice given that the second busiest border crossing in the world is farking Peace Arch where BC 99 meets I 5, and it has some  serious capacity issues since Bush closed the border and Canada reciprocated.  A  lot of people commute to Vancouver from Washington State for work each day (probably as many as commute to Portland out of Washington.  Seriously, Washington, pull an economy together so you're not the entire Pacific coast's commuter bedroom).
 
2014-02-26 06:45:34 PM  

Trik: and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs


I have a very strongly held belief that all fundies need to be pitilessly tortured and then set on fire - but people tell me everyday that I am forced to act like they are citizens deserving of not being tortured and flambed.  Where is the consideration for my beliefs?
 
2014-02-26 06:46:28 PM  

Trik: to all those still replying to me

If it was my wedding, I wouldn't force a religious fundamentalist who despises and hates me, my SO, friends and family, to attend and perform at my wedding

The fundie pops a fuse and the potential for disaster just isn't worth the chance to gloat and rub someone's nose in my lifestyle

and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs


Your argument is invalid.

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-26 06:48:22 PM  

Trik: to all those still replying to me

If it was my wedding, I wouldn't force a religious fundamentalist who despises and hates me, my SO, friends and family, to attend and perform at my wedding

The fundie pops a fuse and the potential for disaster just isn't worth the chance to gloat and rub someone's nose in my lifestyle

and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs


Replace "gays" with "blacks, asians and jews" and see if that changes things.  It's not that he should be forced to provide services to that particular couple, it's the fact that he discriminates in the first place.  It draws a line in the sand that says, "Discrimination based on sexual orientation is no longer tolerated."
 
2014-02-26 06:48:45 PM  

meat0918: I kinda bummed me out when I realized she is careful to say "Her partner" in mixed company, but calls her partner "Her wife" when with friends.  I hope she feels comfortable to say "Her wife" all the time soon.


Knowing Oregon, this will probably be the case  after gay marriage is a thing there.  It's the only place I ever lived where I can think of where 15+% unemployment is the norm, and the police won't take a report if you get broken into or have your car stolen if you don't live in  only the richest neighborhoods; get pulled over 3+ times a week for driving while redskin, or subject to physical violence by total strangers for holding hands with my boyfriend on the MAX.  Worse, I didn't realize this isn't how the rest of the world works until I moved to the reservation on the outskirts of Tulsa after some friends chipped in together to buy me a plane ticket out of shiathole Oregon.  Vast improvement in my mental and physical wellbeing.
 
2014-02-26 06:50:14 PM  

Trik: to all those still replying to me

If it was my wedding, I wouldn't force a religious fundamentalist who despises and hates me, my SO, friends and family, to attend and perform at my wedding

The fundie pops a fuse and the potential for disaster just isn't worth the chance to gloat and rub someone's nose in my lifestyle

and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs


I do recall the case of the lesbian wedding cake was the local District Attorney hearing about the issue and suing the store. It had nothing to do with prosecution by the lesbian couple, and had nothing to do with their right to get married, and had nothing to do with hurting their wittle feewings. It was discrimination.
You're not allowed to refuse service to gays on grounds that they are gay
You're not allowed to refuse service to muslims
You're not allowed to refuse service to women
You're not allowed to refuse service to non-white people
You're not allowed to refuse service to white people
Because all of those are discrimination. Even in the last case where the affected party can just go to another merchant. Even if the refused party blows it off and goes on their way and doesn't feel like pressing the matter. Discrimination is illegal, regardless of how much someone is or is not offended by it. If you don't like serving darkies, then you get shut down.
 
2014-02-26 06:59:06 PM  
Activist judges shiatting on states' rights. As per usual.
 
2014-02-26 07:00:25 PM  
Holy shiat! I was distracted by the GOT thread and missed this I'm going to head over to the derp republic and see how they're taking it.
 
2014-02-26 07:00:46 PM  

phalamir: Syrrh: Getting married is not a strictly religious thing anymore, it is now a civil thing too.

It has always been a civil thing.  religion glommed onto marriage, not the government.  For instance, Christianity didn't even have a religious marriage rite until the 400 or so - and most Christians (meaning born into the faith, lived as an acknowledged Christian by everyone they met, died and were buried with full Christian pomp) were not even married by any service until the 1500s.  Religion created a rite to cover what was a civil act as a way to indicate religion's support for marriages occurring.  The reason Americans see marriage as a religious institution is because the government, in an attempt to reduce workload, decided that if Rev. Chester D. Molester was going to mumble at John and Judy anyway, why not extend to him the authority to do the civil paperwork for them.  And you can see it in how marriage works.  You know what you call a ceremony where Rev. Chester mumbles at John and Judy without a government license? A wasted Saturday afternoon in June.  Know what you call John and Judy getting a government license and having the clerk sign said license? A marriage.  IF the government says you are divorced, you are divorced.  If a church says you are divorced, you are married.  If the government says you are divorced and the church says you aren't, you are divorced.  And it has been this way since at least the Roman farking Empire.

I am third-generation married sans clergy.  My grandparents, my parents, and my wife and I all got hitched without some God-botherer even being present, much less mumbling at us.  Funnily enough, my grandparents and parents (and me at the point I got married) were quite adamant about the ass-in-pew weekend cotillion.  And yet not one clergy or laity, despite knowing exactly the circumstances of our weddings even once intimated that any of us might not be anything but 100% married in all particulars - Hell, my church held a bigger fet ...


Interesting to know. I mean, I knew that the whole "redefining marriage" panic was BS since it has been redefined many times in the past. Still, I'm not wildly sympathetic to religion failing to disentangle itself from governmental business whenever it started caring about who was married to who.
 
2014-02-26 07:02:46 PM  
Let the shiat-dicks get married and be miserable like the rest of us.
 
2014-02-26 07:05:19 PM  
Logically that headline is equivalent to:

Percentage of things coming out of Texas steers drop sharply.

Well, provided you mean steers literally. Otherwise, it's less bull shiat, not less steer shiat. What this has to discriminatory legislation I'll leave for you to figure out.

Personally I think marriage is for idiots. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The odds of two idiots having an intelligent child are nearly as good as the odds of them having a gay child.
 
2014-02-26 07:16:30 PM  

Trik: to all those still replying to me

If it was my wedding, I wouldn't force a religious fundamentalist who despises and hates me, my SO, friends and family, to attend and perform at my wedding

The fundie pops a fuse and the potential for disaster just isn't worth the chance to gloat and rub someone's nose in my lifestyle

and it's just wrong to force people to act against their beliefs
even if you don't agree with those beliefs


It's just wrong to be in a business where you must violate your religious beliefs to make money. Find another line of work.
 
2014-02-26 07:17:13 PM  
Alright I've found the comment thread. If I'm not back within the hour tell my wife I love her very much.
 
2014-02-26 07:21:31 PM  
..

phalamir: Syrrh: Getting married is not a strictly religious thing anymore, it is now a civil thing too.

It has always been a civil thing.  religion glommed onto marriage, not the government.  For instance, Christianity didn't even have a religious marriage rite until the 400 or so - and most Christians (meaning born into the faith, lived as an acknowledged Christian by everyone they met, died and were buried with full Christian pomp) were not even married by any service until the 1500s.  Religion created a rite to cover what was a civil act as a way to indicate religion's support for marriages occurring.  The reason Americans see marriage as a religious institution is because the government, in an attempt to reduce workload, decided that if Rev. Chester D. Molester was going to mumble at John and Judy anyway, why not extend to him the authority to do the civil paperwork for them.  And you can see it in how marriage works.  You know what you call a ceremony where Rev. Chester mumbles at John and Judy without a government license? A wasted Saturday afternoon in June.  Know what you call John and Judy getting a government license and having the clerk sign said license? A marriage.  IF the government says you are divorced, you are divorced.  If a church says you are divorced, you are married.  If the government says you are divorced and the church says you aren't, you are divorced.  And it has been this way since at least the Roman farking Empire.

I am third-generation married sans clergy.  My grandparents, my parents, and my wife and I all got hitched without some God-botherer even being present, much less mumbling at us.  Funnily enough, my grandparents and parents (and me at the point I got married) were quite adamant about the ass-in-pew weekend cotillion.  And yet not one clergy or laity, despite knowing exactly the circumstances of our weddings even once intimated that any of us might not be anything but 100% married in all particulars - Hell, my church held a bigger fet

e for my wife and my semi-elopement than my cousin, who got hitched by the pastor in the church building.
Marriage is not, never has been, and will not be a religious thing - it just has God-botherers hanging on it trying to desperately suck money and obedience from couples like some sort of particularly odious tick.


Well put Marriage as a Civil contract of sorts likely predates any organized religion, Religion grasped on to Marriage as a way to add to the control over the acts and deeds of its faithful.
 
2014-02-26 07:28:03 PM  

ScaryBottles: Alright I've found the comment thread. If I'm not back within the hour tell my wife I love her very much.


She knows!


/Bowie
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

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