Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

23055 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (48 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
 
2014-02-26 03:40:26 PM  
Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...
 
2014-02-26 03:41:11 PM  
lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:12 PM  
Smitings are imminent!
 
2014-02-26 03:41:18 PM  
__________//||||||||||||||

Add another one to the pile.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:23 PM  
Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:43 PM  

TFMR

 
2014-02-26 03:41:48 PM  
www.screeninsults.com
 
2014-02-26 03:41:49 PM  
Soon... (I hope)

img.fark.net

 
2014-02-26 03:41:49 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

Well that's just FABULOUS!!
 
2014-02-26 03:42:12 PM  
Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.
 
2014-02-26 03:42:27 PM  
Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.
 
2014-02-26 03:42:37 PM  
 ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

Texans should love this, their government just got a little smaller.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:13 PM  
Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...
 
2014-02-26 03:43:19 PM  
I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:23 PM  
However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time
 
2014-02-26 03:43:26 PM  
I was going to submit this as "Texas ban on same-sex marriage to become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" but I like this too.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:33 PM  
Well played, subby.  *toasts a Shiner Bock*
 
2014-02-26 03:43:36 PM  
Texas is probably too busy hooking up their next zombie turducken to notice.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:44 PM  
But what about my freedom to have more rights than gay people??
 
2014-02-26 03:43:45 PM  
Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too
 
2014-02-26 03:43:55 PM  

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




sports-kings.com

U mad, bro?

 
2014-02-26 03:43:58 PM  

mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.


If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:59 PM  
This isn't going to last long, but it would be pretty awesome if the ruling stood up to appeal.

/not holding my breath
 
2014-02-26 03:44:07 PM  

mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.


She bucked her own party and gave the go-ahead for a Medicaid expansion for Arizona.  I think she's smart enough to see the foolishness in that obscene law.
 
2014-02-26 03:44:08 PM  
They'll let it slide - but fer Keeerist's sake, don't serve chili with beans at them same-sex weddings!
 
2014-02-26 03:44:28 PM  
Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!
 
2014-02-26 03:44:29 PM  
Taking bets on the next state to overturn their bans.
Mine are Ohio and North Carolina
 
2014-02-26 03:44:53 PM  

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


No, thank you.
They just drove the final nail in Amendment IV's coffin.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:03 PM  
Yee-Haw!!!
 
2014-02-26 03:45:23 PM  
In related news, the court upheld a law that made it illegal to fark a person in the ass and not even have the common decency to give him a reach-around.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:24 PM  
It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:49 PM  
I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare
 
2014-02-26 03:46:43 PM  
This is currently a victory in word only. He immediately added a stay until it passes through appeals. You can absolutely expect the Rs to appeal.

Unfortunately, this domino won't fall until the SC forces it to.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:01 PM  
Bravo subby, I went for the same joke and botched it more than Sin Cara botches an armbar (terribly written in a rush; newsflash ruined the tone). I wonder when appeals on all these states will finally go through, might want to buy stock in wedding service industry companies by end of the year.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:10 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


He's gonna blow something.

www.pensitoreview.com
 
2014-02-26 03:47:13 PM  
A bit of a stretch for that "joke," yet again.

But anyway. Hells yeah. We'll still have to fight the appeal, but this is a step that has to be taken.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-26 03:47:31 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


My soul is refreshed by the tears of impotent fury of bigots and bullies.  Today is a 'good' day.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:40 PM  
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if silence  was suddenly drowned out by a million derp. I fear something fabulous has happened.
 
2014-02-26 03:48:03 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-26 03:48:12 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


I disagree, I bet he positively shouts "ole".
 
2014-02-26 03:48:21 PM  
Giddy up
mimg.ugo.com
 
2014-02-26 03:48:33 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


I liked the polling they did where they just asked whether people supported or opposed Amendment One, and people supported it by a decently large margin. Then they did the same poll, but explained all of what Amendment One actually did. The margin flipped, and there was a large majority against it.

Amendment One passed entirely because of ignorance. Well, bigotry too, but without the ignorance, it would have failed.
 
2014-02-26 03:48:40 PM  
I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50
 
2014-02-26 03:48:41 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-26 03:48:57 PM  
Maybe you can come over later and fark my sister!
 
2014-02-26 03:49:13 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-26 03:49:14 PM  
Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.
 
2014-02-26 03:50:20 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Perry Peter Puffer
 
2014-02-26 03:51:35 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well played, subby.  *toasts a Shiner Bock*


and digs out his old Buzzcocks (stangely appropriate) cassette tape


/don't mess with Texas
//Because Lord Knows it is plenty messed up as it is
 
2014-02-26 03:51:44 PM  
Separation of church and state is not only confusing to some, but offensive.
 
2014-02-26 03:51:44 PM  
When are these people going to learn that their religious hate is not constitutionally sound??
 
2014-02-26 03:51:45 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 03:52:03 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


Garcias have probably been in Texas since they arrived with the Conquistadors. And he might even be a Jew, since they arrived with the Conquistadors too. Sephardic Jews that got out of the way of the century or so of tortured conversion to the Catholic church.

Besides, if he had been new blood, he would have had 5 names, 3 hyphens and an arriba.
 
2014-02-26 03:52:27 PM  

MacEnvy: Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...

I disagree, I bet he positively shouts "ole".


Well played sir....well played.

/golf clap
 
2014-02-26 03:53:02 PM  

StrikitRich: [i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Well that's just FABULOUS!!


Came for the FMJ reference.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:24 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


Just give them a comforting pat on the butt.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:24 PM  
I have a dream that one day "Judge affirms basic civil right" will not be a Fark newsflash worthy headline.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:46 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


God I have hated living in offices with right wingers. The tea party type ones are always very vocal about their beliefs and freak out if you have a different opinion than yours.

I try not to talk politics at work but when some of them go on I feel I can't just keep silent.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:07 PM  
Among those defending the Texas ban is state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is the leading Republican candidate for governor asshole in the state.

// we have a Blazing Saddles thing going in another thread
 
2014-02-26 03:54:16 PM  

'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling

- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-26 03:54:20 PM  
cbswzlx2.files.wordpress.com

Hold still maggot, while I knit you a sweater!
 
2014-02-26 03:54:24 PM  
Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:41 PM  
5th Circuit is heavy on the Republicans too, so don't hold your breath. 2 Clinton and 2 Obama appointees out of 17 active judges. 2 Carter and 1 Clinton with senior status out of 8. So 7 out of 25 judges hearing cases on that appeals court are Democratic appointees, 18 are Republican appointees.

That's actually kind of stunning.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:55 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50


What was 50, Louisiana?
 
2014-02-26 03:55:15 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I have a dream that one day "Judge affirms basic civil right" will not be a Fark newsflash worthy headline.


Well said
 
2014-02-26 03:55:16 PM  

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.


I see we have the Studman69 of headlines here today.
 
2014-02-26 03:55:46 PM  

Texian: Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!


I like you Judge Garcia, Hell I think I'll let you come home and fark my sister
 
2014-02-26 03:56:26 PM  

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.


Thank the Lord Almighty you are here to play Solomon Of The Acceptable Fark Headlines.
 
2014-02-26 03:56:51 PM  
STATES' RIGHTS!
 
2014-02-26 03:57:10 PM  

Last Man on Earth: HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50

What was 50, Louisiana?


Mississippi. Louisiana has NOLA, so I figured they'd go soooner
 
2014-02-26 03:57:21 PM  

BKITU: 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.

I see we have the Studman69 of headlines here today.


Your sarcasm meter is broken.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:26 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:33 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


I would love to ask them does that mean he thinks state's should be able to once again make anti-inter-racial marriage laws.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:35 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


I'm saving my one excursion into Freeper Land for when a TP darling is nominated as the Republican candidate for President and loses by at least 10 points in the election.
 
2014-02-26 03:58:20 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Stack waits in antici ...

...

... -pation.

www.hghhelp.com
 
2014-02-26 03:58:43 PM  
+1 for the headline subster!
 
2014-02-26 03:58:48 PM  

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


Fark that, court cases take years.

Just get Congress to pass a law, and have anyone who opposes it have a permanent scar on their record.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:08 PM  
Something something thought this was 'Merica
 
2014-02-26 03:59:14 PM  
Geoff Peterson: I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards.

Are you new here?  What standards are those?
 
2014-02-26 03:59:15 PM  
Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! That's all I can say!
 
2014-02-26 03:59:29 PM  

Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.


...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:32 PM  
"no rational relation" to legitimate government

Is that legalspeak for "Your law is bad and you should FEEL bad"?
 
2014-02-26 03:59:38 PM  
The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:58 PM  

Magorn: I like you Judge Garcia, Hell I think I'll let you come home and fark my sister


Hey, no cutting in line.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:12 PM  
It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:14 PM  

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

Fark that, court cases take years.

Just get Congress to pass a law, and have anyone who opposes it have a permanent scar on their record.


I don't really think congress could pass a law like that, unless it was an amendment.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:19 PM  
Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:26 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


Except when it comes to shiat you don't like that the citizenry backs right Governor Goodhair Knownothing?
 
2014-02-26 04:00:38 PM  

moeburn: What standards are those?


American Standards. I believe they make toilets.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:49 PM  
 
2014-02-26 04:01:06 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-02-26 04:01:10 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:01:13 PM  

KAVORKA: I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.


1.bp.blogspot.com

/ agrees
 
2014-02-26 04:01:16 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.


I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive.
 
2014-02-26 04:02:12 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

"Not like that numbnuts! I said put your wiener in my hand and let me choke it!"

OR

"Who the fark just said that?!? I will cornhole you until your assholes are shiatting buttermilk!"
 
2014-02-26 04:02:47 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Omit unnecessary words.
 
2014-02-26 04:02:59 PM  

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


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

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



Because I have a man crush on R. Lee Earmy

s1.ibtimes.com

"I bet you're the kinda guy that would fark a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watching you!"
 
2014-02-26 04:03:06 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.


Lawd knows this is like trying to nail jello to a wall, but last time I heard the term try to be defined it was either people who have some sort of kink like BDSM  and so are heterosexual but not "straight" or just heterosexuals who really really hate they they are so normal and so invented a category just for them so they could be oppressed too.

/Down with the cause, just have little patience for labels and navel gazing
//insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show  them to you before you die
 
2014-02-26 04:03:18 PM  
:-)
 
2014-02-26 04:03:24 PM  

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.


As a gay man who graduated from Texas A&M, I say it's perfect for today.
 
2014-02-26 04:03:36 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.


Don't let the truth get into play here ... it is FARK
 
hej
2014-02-26 04:03:53 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


No, but it is the role of the judicial system to make sure laws are obeyed.
 
2014-02-26 04:03:53 PM  

ChipNASA: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

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

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


Because I have a man crush on R. Lee Earmy

[s1.ibtimes.com image 720x642]

"I bet you're the kinda guy that would fark a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watching you!"


Ermey Got Damn it.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:14 PM  

ltdanman44: [upload.wikimedia.org image 704x857]


His uniform needs some cleaning and tailoring. But I'm not going to tell him that. No sir. I mean...ooops.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:30 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.



And the mayor of Houston is a carpet muncher*

* that's what Council Member Micheal "Hit and Run Leaving a Gay Bar" Berry called her.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:47 PM  
My former boss, who was very flamboyantly gay, recently moved from West Hollywood to Dallas with his boyfriend.  I was as shocked as anyone about this.  Would it be appropriate to congratulate him on this?
 
2014-02-26 04:05:02 PM  
Activist judges trying to keep small government from condemning types of sexuality I don't understand... grrr

I just divided by derp.
 
2014-02-26 04:05:28 PM  
media1.giphy.com
 
2014-02-26 04:05:50 PM  
This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:06:35 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.


Hold onto your britches, but I've had a conservative argue with me that the problem isn't what gays do, but that what they do becomes normalized, leading to more people indulging in their perversions, including perversions no one would defend.
 
2014-02-26 04:07:49 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:08:04 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...

Stack waits in antici ...

...

... -pation.

[www.hghhelp.com image 476x531]


Okay, can't stand the man, but if that's the kind of guy Rick Perry is into, then he's got good taste.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:04 PM  
Damnit Greg Abbott, stop throwing our money away on this. Let it go. We have other things to spend our money on than these stupid, and ultimately pointless, legal battles.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:10 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
bow
2014-02-26 04:09:13 PM  
Come on Ohio, get in the game.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:25 PM  
Good.


And good headline.
 
2014-02-26 04:10:04 PM  

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.


GOD DAMMIT SO MUCH
 
2014-02-26 04:10:22 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:10:58 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


Okay, that was funny.
 
2014-02-26 04:11:06 PM  

QueenMamaBee: 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.


That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.
 
2014-02-26 04:11:44 PM  
I guess there will be another gay pride parade in Austin.

/about damn time
//suck it, bigots!
 
2014-02-26 04:12:04 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.


Q = Questioning, not Queer.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-26 04:14:11 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


So.
Two gay men together would technically be lesbian.
I see.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:18 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!
 
2014-02-26 04:14:55 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:15:18 PM  

nekom: "no rational relation" to legitimate government

Is that legalspeak for "Your law is bad and you should FEEL bad"?


Except for laws that discriminate against groups that have a long history of being subjected to discrimination (especially laws that discriminate on the basis of race or gender), which requires a higher showing by the government, the government is allowed to discriminate against a given group if the discriminatory law bears a "rational relation" to advancing any governmental interest.  For example, the government discriminates against blind people by refusing to give them driver's licenses, and discriminates against prison inmates by refusing to allow them to carry a Glock, but nobody would suggest that these rules aren't rationally related to a legitimate public interest.

So what the judge is saying--correctly--is that it isn't even necessary to decide whether discrimination against gays and lesbians should be subjected to higher scrutiny, as with laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or race, because even by the very permissible standards applied everyday discrimination by the government, discriminating against homosexuals in marriage rights is not rationally related to any legitimate government or public interest and is therefore unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.  Which I completely agree with.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:09 PM  

nakago: 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.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:15 PM  

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.


Which is why we don't allow the elderly or infertile to marry, just like Jesus said.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:39 PM  

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.


All men are instantly divorced when they get a vasectomy! They can't procreate, their marriage is invalid!
 
2014-02-26 04:16:55 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


 Unfortunately, he has corrected it about 3 times.

And just because you put "period" after something doesn't make it irrevocably true. "Authentic Conservative" my ass.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:05 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

So.
Two gay men together would technically be lesbian.
I see.


Two outies don't make an innie.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:48 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?


I like that he and others like him KNOW the silent majority is with them. They just know it! It's obvious! Just goes to show you how out of touch some people can be
 
2014-02-26 04:17:51 PM  
From behind the Ironside Curtain in Freeperville, my comments in bold:

Why does Texas have to listen to a Federal Judge?

Why do the rest of us have to listen to Texas piss and moan all the time? I'll tell you why: sometimes you put up with your mentally challenged Uncle Kermit, even though he keeps trying to touch Cindy, because he's family.


"A federal judge"
ie, a constitution-loathing Marxist judge.


You know how those damn communists just love homosexuality


Our constitution is being usurped each and every damn day! This president, and all the damn libs in San Antonio need to be arrested

You and your fancy 'law degree', 'years of experience', 'education' and 'general human deceny' found something unconstitutional? Must mean it is, in fact, so constitutional that you can't take it anymore!

Texas needs to secede. This is tyranny, top down. I will gladly come to Texas and join secessionist forces. We do not need to remain beholden to the Barack Stalin thugs.

"I will gladly come to Texas and lend my fighting expertise. Texas does have a handicap ramp and hoveround parking, correct?"

One gets the distinct impression that these people have set this up long ago and just waited for "their day"...Like Soviet sleeper cells... called to activation..Just sayin'.....Nah.... couldn't be - they're just good, "loyal opposition" democrats after all...

I'd say, "Don't worry, you'll be safe in your mom's basement," but I don't think most double wides have basements.

His was appointed by Clinton.  He supports gay marriage.And his name is Orlando.

His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:52 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare


You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:07 PM  

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.


Unless they're lesbians, which means they can go to a sperm bank and both can have babies. Or they can adopt, if a male couple. Either way your argument falls completely flat.  I guess under your rules an infertile male-female couple shouldn't be allowed to marry, since they can't procreate.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:08 PM  

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.


My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...
 
2014-02-26 04:18:19 PM  

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.


Neither can sterile couples.  Adoption.  Next.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:21 PM  

vygramul: sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]

[0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 600x358]


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:18:35 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:19:08 PM  

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.


Say, I bet you protest divorce every chance you get!
 
2014-02-26 04:19:26 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:19:33 PM  

Magorn: 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.

Lawd knows this is like trying to nail jello to a wall, but last time I heard the term try to be defined it was either people who have some sort of kink like BDSM  and so are heterosexual but not "straight" or just heterosexuals who really really hate they they are so normal and so invented a category just for them so they could be oppressed too.

/Down with the cause, just have little patience for labels and navel gazing
//insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show  them to you before you die


That's a lot nicer than I've heard it explained... the nicest way I've heard it was "Fark if I know... some kinda attention whoring."
 
2014-02-26 04:20:51 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


Yeah?  Check back in about 30 years.
 
2014-02-26 04:21:22 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.


That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too
 
2014-02-26 04:21:40 PM  
And from that wonderful source of unabated derp known as free republic -- Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.
 
2014-02-26 04:21:45 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.


The mayor of Houston recently returned from a trip to California where she married her long-term partner.  And if I remember correctly when she was first elected she was the first openly gay mayor of such a large city.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:01 PM  

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.


It is next to impossible for my wife and I to procreate.  Our marriage is invalid also?
/sick of this
 
2014-02-26 04:22:01 PM  
Bareefer Obonghit: [Quoting bigots elsewhere]  His was appointed by Clinton.  He supports gay marriage.And his name is Orlando.

I'm not sure if this is racist or anti-Disney.

I know, I know...

i159.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-26 04:22:06 PM  

nakago: 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.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


There is some dispute of what letters past "T" mean. Queer is valid, but so is questioning. A for asexual, though some think it's for allies, which really defies rational explanation. (NAACP isn't National Association of Allies and Colored People. Nor would it occur to anyone to ever consider including allies in that context.) Frankly, given the alphabet soup, I think Queer makes more sense.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:25 PM  
And the amount of golf balls coming out of garden hoses increases dramatically.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:46 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:49 PM  

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.


And I procreated without marriage, so HA!

/yes, I know...I sound slutty
 
2014-02-26 04:22:53 PM  
So, that's seven dominoes in mid-topple for Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Nevada, and Texas, plus the 17 where it's outright legal already? Plus the case in Michigan that will probably behave similarly; almost to the halfway mark.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:55 PM  

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


No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.
 
2014-02-26 04:23:20 PM  

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.


Is the hat on your head about two sizes too small?
 
2014-02-26 04:23:39 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.


Genderqueer people generally fall more into the T category than any other: it's a catch-all term for those who are considered outside the gender binary, whether that be multiple genders, a mix of genders, gender fluid, or lacking gender.

I have a friend who considers hirself neutrois and prefers to be referred to as "ze" or "they." I can't say I completely understand it, but I try my best to be supportive.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:09 PM  

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.


Good troll, lots of bites.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:37 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:46 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?
 
2014-02-26 04:26:09 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?


Film Actor's Guild
 
2014-02-26 04:26:46 PM  
It will happen sooner or later.
Even here, where the joke goes:
If cancer was mostly a gay only disease, It would of been cures years ago too.
 
2014-02-26 04:27:07 PM  
Oh, oh, Domino
Roll me over, Romeo, there you go
Lord have mercy, I said
Oh, oh, Domino
Roll me over, Romeo, there you go
Yeah alright, say it again
Oh, oh, Domino
I said oh, oh, Domino
 
2014-02-26 04:28:24 PM  
Suck it, cons.  Suck it long and suck it hard.
 
2014-02-26 04:28:36 PM  

Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die


Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender
 
2014-02-26 04:28:42 PM  

moeburn: I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive


or accurate.

cltampa.com
 
2014-02-26 04:29:03 PM  

Chakat: And from that wonderful source of unabated derp known as free republic -- Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.


i1222.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-26 04:29:48 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:12 PM  

Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild


What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:13 PM  
Dang, Smitty! I thought Rick Perry was finally leaving.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:56 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too


No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.
 
2014-02-26 04:33:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die

Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender


When I posted on my Facebook account about their extending possible gender responses to be more inclusive, a friend criticized them and said that we shouldn't care what people say their gender is. The ironic thing? He lists his gender on his Facebook profile.
 
2014-02-26 04:33:56 PM  
QueenMamaBee:
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.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.
 
2014-02-26 04:34:27 PM  

obenchainr: Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


images.amcnetworks.com
"Not funny ha-ha."

 
2014-02-26 04:34:29 PM  

Corvus: JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]

I would love to ask them does that mean he thinks state's should be able to once again make anti-inter-racial marriage laws.


No you wouldn't and no they don't.
 
2014-02-26 04:34:30 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild

What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.


Only one that I know of

i61.tinypic.com

/Team America
//F*ck Yeah!
 
2014-02-26 04:35:03 PM  
I honestly did not believe this when I saw it. Good!
 
2014-02-26 04:35:54 PM  

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.



Well, he wouldn't have to worry about her 'step dad' molesting her.
I'll be in the corner.........
 
2014-02-26 04:36:58 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.


I assumed the first bit was tongue-in-cheek. Now it sounds like you're actually serious about the threat of zero procreation looming large. Don't worry, after the scary libs have forced all men to marry into a big gay santorum-leaking commune, all women will also be required to be unwed mothers of course.
 
2014-02-26 04:37:20 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild

What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.


The kind with long close ups of mustaches riding up and down glistening cocks.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:04 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


i.imgur.com

...blows something.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:12 PM  

BinderWoman: Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.

I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!


Yeah, it's gonna be fun here. I'm just not gonna socialize at work for a bit.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:46 PM  
I want to end all gay marriages.  But that's only because I'm a divorce attorney and I think the potential  income and entertainment values could be epic.
 
2014-02-26 04:39:08 PM  

jaybeezey: No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.


You got somethin' against Germans?
 
2014-02-26 04:41:00 PM  

rwhamann: BinderWoman: Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.

I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!

Yeah, it's gonna be fun here. I'm just not gonna socialize at work for a bit.


Yeah, but it's gonna fun in Montrose, too.
 
2014-02-26 04:41:17 PM  
I wonder what effect this will have on the governor's race, since the AG (R candidate for gov) is going to defend the law.  I can see it swinging both ways (*ahem*), but I don't know of any recent polls of marriage equality in Texas.
 
2014-02-26 04:41:50 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


North Carolina was the second-to-last state to seceed from the Union.  They'll probably be the second-to-last to yield marriage rights, too.  NC is bit... slow.
 
2014-02-26 04:42:15 PM  
Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?
 
2014-02-26 04:43:56 PM  

eraser8: Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?


Fear
 
2014-02-26 04:44:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die

Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender


it's about putting words in the English language that do not exist, especially when they serve no point but to delineate how special a person perceives themselves to be .  The ironic thing is that in an attempt to defy fender steroeotyprs people that indulge in this sort of twaddle are actually REINFORCING them

You are a girl that likes to fix cars?  That doesn't make you a HIR that makes you a woman who fits nicely into the real spectrum of what woman are, despite cultural attempts to limit roles.

I;m 6'3 fat, balding hairy and straight, but I still admire Freddie Mercury and Dr. Frakenfurter as quasi role models- not because I am "strangely gendered" but just cause I like their swagger

We are ALL as Jung said, some mix of Animus and Anima, male and female essence, and the idea that if we are are anything put stereotypically male or female then we are a new "gender" needing its own pronoun is not merely ridiculous, but actually damaging
 
2014-02-26 04:44:32 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.


Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.
 
2014-02-26 04:44:57 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


Be sure to use protection.  And log off after an hour, for your own safety.
 
2014-02-26 04:45:30 PM  
And yet the Republican nominee will still run on a platform of adding a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And he will lose badly because of it
 
2014-02-26 04:45:46 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.


Don't you go sending those people up here.
 
2014-02-26 04:46:16 PM  

browntimmy: QueenMamaBee:
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.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.


That would explain one friend's irritation with them.
 
2014-02-26 04:46:47 PM  
11 years ago it was illegal to commit homosexual acts in Texas. Think about that. Only 15 years ago a Texas man wen to jail for sleeping in the same bed as the person he loved.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided only 11 years ago.

Now, homosexual relationships are not only legal, but will very soon (as soon as SCOTUS gets off its ass and hears one of these cases) be legally recognized by the state of Texas.

This is social change at a ridiculous pace, from you're-going-to-prison to here's-your-official-document-recognizing-your-love-and-commitment-and -acknowledging-your-legal-rights in barely a decade.

It's a pretty cool time to be alive.
 
2014-02-26 04:47:25 PM  

technicolor-misfit: rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...

He's gonna blow something.

[www.pensitoreview.com image 375x333]


lulz

That just made my f*cking day.
 
2014-02-26 04:48:33 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: I want to end all gay marriages.  But that's only because I'm a divorce attorney and I think the potential  income and entertainment values could be epic.


1. Befriend a lot of lesbians.
2. Convince them marriage is the new U-Haul.
3. Wait three weeks.
4. Profit.

You're welcome.
 
2014-02-26 04:49:59 PM  
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...
 
2014-02-26 04:50:25 PM  
2014-02-26 04:14:18 PM
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.


Confused person is confused.  I don't see that in most state laws I am reading -  "Marital law is established for procreation"  - it seems to be all about rights of survivorship/visitation and division/combination of debts and assets.  Seems to be an agreement between two adults capable of entering legally into a contract, for the purpose of the above.  Why should it matter whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman?
 
2014-02-26 04:50:37 PM  

ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...


A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.
 
2014-02-26 04:50:49 PM  
goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives
 
2014-02-26 04:51:07 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:19 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:34 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.


Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:38 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:51:48 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Are you a troll or are you just stupid?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:51 PM  

eraser8: Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?


Because then Republicans get off on breaking the rules, and if marriage equality is a thing, sneaking out on the wife to get a handie at a rest stop loses its allure.

And before the "not all Republicans are closet cases" armada arrives: when David Vitter was caught pooping himself to get off, the Republicans were incredulous that he was schtupping a woman; I have to assume they are actually aware of their own sexual preferences, and they were pretty unanimous that the woman part of the equation was the unbelievable element.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:02 PM  
Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:56 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Look if you don't want to provide services to people, WHY ARE YOU IN THAT SERVICE?

Do something else.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:13 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage


False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:32 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.

Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.


Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 04:53:46 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.


The "Q" can represent either "Queer" or "Questioning."

"Questioning" folks are people who think they might be gay (or some other variety of LBGT-what-have-you), but aren't sure.

"Queer" is a catch-all term that includes LBGT (so at first it seems redundant), but also includes a few more groups, such as the asexual folk (who don't want to have sex with anybody).

It really boils down to just trying to include anyone who wants to be included.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:48 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.

/moron.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:00 PM  
Freepers are taking it well.

It's their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don't factor into the queers' equation.


Homosexuals must get what they want says the government and the judiciary.
What the heck does it matter what the people say?
What the heck does it matter what the Constitution says?
 
2014-02-26 04:54:12 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Yes, how terrible that business owners might make money.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:17 PM  

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?


I want to know this as well
 
2014-02-26 04:54:22 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.


thesupacoowackiestblogintheuniverse.files.wordpress.com

All I can say is you're a goddamn moron. And now I have you farkied as such.

/Please tell me how two gays getting married will affect your life
 
2014-02-26 04:54:49 PM  

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...


As a Houstonian who wants to get gay-married, how bout ya don't...
 
2014-02-26 04:55:04 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Republicans are still actively fighting against desegregation and the voting rights act. No reason to think near unanimous oposition to their opinions would stop them on this issue either.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:36 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility


I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:43 PM  

rkiller1: The Black-on-Black violence in Africa?


Why is it that the same people who talk about the black-on-black violence in Africa never seem to notice the white-on-white violence in Europe?
 
2014-02-26 04:55:47 PM  
Welcome to the 21st Century, Texas.

I hope the bigots in your state don't drag you back to the 19th.
 
2014-02-26 04:56:07 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


theelephantgun.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-26 04:56:15 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: I think that's great your friend started a family. Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage


Life is easier if you can just make up bullshiat definitions in order to support your point, isn't it?
 
2014-02-26 04:56:26 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: 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.


I'll give you credit for sticking to the troll, but your argument holds zero legitimacy.  If there can be no force to reproduce nor test to ensure that reproduction occurs within marriage then who gets married is entirely disconnected from reproduction.

Thus, no two consenting adult citizens can be restricted from filing paperwork with the state to seek a special legal status in regards to each other.  Any restriction on such paperwork filing is inevitably afoul of the 14th amendment, and won't last.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:43 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.



So does that mean if my balls get torn off in a deli accident, I should not be allowed to marry?
Because getting your balls torn off and stuffed into a sausage casing would ensure 100% infertility, I would think.

Do the violently castrated have no rights in your world?
 
2014-02-26 04:57:54 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Everyone who made something for our commitment ceremony in Aggieland TX knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and did their jobs anyway.  Were any of them anti-gay?  Statistically speaking (for the area), probably.  Did any of them complain or refuse?  Nope.  Did all of them get extra business after we recommended their services to all our friends after the ceremony?  I hope so.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:57 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.


Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...
 
2014-02-26 04:58:03 PM  

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


My car's in the parking lot.  I'll be careful on the way.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:21 PM  
Wait, this is not a repeat from 2003? For a people who claim to hate law suits so much these jackasses sure like suing people on issues that were settled over a decade ago.

I moved away from Texas 15 years ago precisely because I can't stand the bigotry and corruption these assholes practice on a daily basis. Yet it is good to hear it was Judge Garcia who handed down this ruling. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to vote for any presidential candidate is to make sure they nominate judges who will at least follow precedent. This is no guarantee, but it's the best we can hope for.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:31 PM  
I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.

So, uh, congrats, I guess. I would identify myself as a hetero Christian, but I remain baffled as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage legality in the first place. Let consenting adults do whatever they want with whoever they want.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:37 PM  
How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:17 PM  
That steers and queers line, did the person who came up with it know that steers are castrated male cattle?  I hope he/she did, because it's a lot funnier that way.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:59 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.


White zinfandel for everybody! Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 05:00:22 PM  
Let me get this (ahem) straight.  Texas is ahead of Oregon in terms of LGBT equality?

/My wife and I may not be legally married at the moment; I legally changed my sex last month, and the under the Oregon constitution the State cannot recognize a same-sex marriage.  The state I live in, WA, will not recognize a marriage unless it is held valid in the state it was solemnized in.  Oregon's AG dept refuses to say "it's legal" or "it's not", saying I need to contact a lawyer.  I have no interest to push the matter, so as it stands right now it's entirely possible that if my wife dies I don't get a thing from her (or, more importantly, the reverse).
 
2014-02-26 05:00:30 PM  

Maul555: Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.

Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...


Pat Robertson.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:07 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


I hate this argument because all the rights that I got from a $30 marriage license, my gay friends have to spend thousand of dollars in legal fees.

/married for twenty years and no children by choice.  So.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:23 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: 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.


Please cite the specific reference in our Constitution that affords people reproductive privacy.  I'd be interested in seeing that.  If such a clause exists then wouldn't we be breaching that constitutionally afforded right by assuming or claiming that it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate?

Do you smite unwed mothers if they procreated outside of wedlock?  What about the sperm donor for that same child?

Welcome to this century.  Please try to adjust.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:22 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:45 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.


Don't lie.  We already know all about the Gay Bandidos.  (NSFW language)
 
2014-02-26 05:03:23 PM  

Maul555: Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...


LOL

Yeah, pull the other one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:03 PM  

drumhellar: ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...

A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.


Hey, this is America, land of innovation.  If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:24 PM  

ariseatex: nakago: 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.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.

Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.


Or FABGLITTER.

/one of my favorites, but friends tell me no one uses that one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:31 PM  
Where you  Farkers been all your lives?  An orgy?  Been out listenin' to that Mick Jagger music and bad mouthin' your counrty, I'll bet.
/Stop eyeballin' me, boy
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


Wait... I'm sorry- which side are you on?
*Looks up Amendment One*

Oh- so NOT the  Federal Constitutional Amendment- gotcha.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:49 PM  

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


I know, right? The federal government exercising control over its constituent members is just insane.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:58 PM  

Magorn: it's about putting words in the English language that do not exist, especially when they serve no point but to delineate how special a person perceives themselves to be . The ironic thing is that in an attempt to defy fender steroeotyprs people that indulge in this sort of twaddle are actually REINFORCING them


We add words all the time for things that have no point - blog, selfie, phablet, rocker (to mean "rock star"). Some of those piss me off as well (especially since I just got a Note 3 - I use it to make "phone calls", not "phablet calls"), but not enough to make a stink. Won't use one of those myself, but if xe wants to, why should I care?

Magorn: You are a girl that likes to fix cars? That doesn't make you a HIR that makes you a woman who fits nicely into the real spectrum of what woman are, despite cultural attempts to limit roles.

I;m 6'3 fat, balding hairy and straight, but I still admire Freddie Mercury and Dr. Frakenfurter as quasi role models- not because I am "strangely gendered" but just cause I like their swagger


We have a word for the former: "tomboy" (which, if you ask me, is gendered and rather unsuitable for the description). What makes a 'hir' is someone wanting to use that pronoun - could just as easily be a straight cismale as a presurgical queer trans* - that's it. I am also large, balding (more like "thinning", though I can hide it well for now), hairy, and straight, with a similar affection for Tim Curry and Mr Fahrenheit because I enjoy their works - who the fark cares?

You're (a person is) "strangely gendered" because they feel that way, not because some long-dead rocker wore eyeliner. Does some of it come from "traditional" or "societal" gender roles? Probably, but who's really to say what is "nature" and what is "nurture"?

Magorn: We are ALL as Jung said, some mix of Animus and Anima, male and female essence, and the idea that if we are are anything put stereotypically male or female then we are a new "gender" needing its own pronoun is not merely ridiculous, but actually damaging

.

How? Because it hews to "traditional gender roles" if only to explicitly violate them? I hear this argument from people all the time, actually.

The problem is that while "sex" is usually neat and clean (USUALLY; something like 90-95% of cases that don't involve previous surgery, your outsides match your insides), gender is not. We have a long history (and HERstory, amirite?) of treating the two as equivalent, and far be it from me to piss on someone else's subversion of that norm.

Someone else preferring "hir" or "they" or "xe" or even something else entirely, while it's not what I would do, really doesn't matter a fart in a windstorm to my happiness or our friendship.

// and "cis" is just the opposite of "trans", so doing away with that presents other problems
 
2014-02-26 05:05:15 PM  

meat0918: It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.


They lost Texas.  They won Uganda.  And Russia.  In terms of the West, we're making great progress, but on a global scale things are pretty grim.
 
2014-02-26 05:05:18 PM  

eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?


I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime
 
2014-02-26 05:05:41 PM  
PolyHatSnake: approves

hollywoodpsychicinsider.com
 
2014-02-26 05:08:07 PM  

PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.


Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.
 
2014-02-26 05:09:19 PM  

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.


After reading this thread, I did NOT read "clicks" at first.
 
2014-02-26 05:09:41 PM  

kronicfeld: CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility

I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.


Ectopic pregnancy.

// often fatal, so don't try it at home
 
2014-02-26 05:10:19 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage


No, they cannot.  There are well over a thousand specific federal advantages to being married, i.e. being married gives you some leg up that is not available to those not married.  Those things cannot be extended by private contract, because you cannot force the feds to extend those benefits privately - except through a marriage.

And marriage has never been primarily about procreation. It is about defining property transfers.  Originally, this was the wife herself - indicating she was no longer owned by her father, but by her husband. Connected to that was transfer of wealth or patronage between families, through dowries and/or alliances.  Even inheritance matters are simply about insuring that the people receiving a family's wealth have ties to that wealth (so the dowry from Mr. Smith for Mr. Jones marrying his daughter doesn't go to Mr. Jones' mistress' son).  Kids are nice; kids means the family can continue.  But the marriage is about property transfer and protection.  Because note that until the very recent past, most people without significant wealth did not get married.  Dirt farmers just simply moved in together and started popping out babies; they were considered husband and wife just by those actions, because no one cared about who got a threadbare blanket and clay pisspot.  But the wealthy and powerful had elaborate rituals and negotiated deals in place, because who gained control of Aquitaine had serious socio-politico-economic ramifications.
 
2014-02-26 05:10:23 PM  

Maud Dib: PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.
Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-26 05:10:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.


Not what I said, Snowflake.  Deep breaths, how do they work?
 
2014-02-26 05:11:15 PM  

moeburn: 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.

I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive.


Jay Smooth's video is about racism, not homophobia, but I think it's applicable.
 
2014-02-26 05:11:17 PM  

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

img.gawkerassets.com

www.bradblog.com

www.dallasnews.com

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
 
2014-02-26 05:12:06 PM  

Polish Hussar: That steers and queers line, did the person who came up with it know that steers are castrated male cattle?  I hope he/she did, because it's a lot funnier that way.


I think that's probably why the screen writers of An Officer and a Gentleman had Louis Gossett Jr say it. Learn your cinema trivia, son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lGs-tXWpR4
 
2014-02-26 05:12:15 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


Hey eraser, I am going with stupid.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:17 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


I live in Houston. I recently saw a truck with exactly 2 bumper stickers. One old faded one that said "United We Stand" emblazoned with the American Flag. There was another apparently Newer bumper sticker that read "Secede" with the Lone Flag of Texas. So his viewpoint changed and he couldn't even be bothered to remove the contradictory sticker.

9/11 happens, God Bless Merca
Obama happens, secede.

I'm so embarrassed to live next door to people like this. (not literally, my next door neighbors are both well educated, liberal, and open minded.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:33 PM  

Maud Dib: PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.

Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.


No kidding. This past summer I walked across Lake Travis. Didn't even get my knees wet.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:36 PM  

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

No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.


I notice in your list of things that you are, you did not mention your religion. I think that's the difference.
 
2014-02-26 05:14:12 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


I don't understand the point of suing them, unless the company signed a contract with one party, and then found out after down payment was made that the couple was gay, and refused to give back deposit and wouldn't provide them services.

If the above didn't happen, boycotting them, and telling all of your pro-gay buddies what they did, and how you'd like it if they did the same, and ending up driving them out of business should be enough.

But I suppose it has to do with all of those anti-discrimination laws that forced restaurants to have to serve other minorities, along with the preferred majority might have something to do with it.
 
2014-02-26 05:14:45 PM  
All for letting gays get married. About time they get to have the pleasure of losing half their stuff in a divorce. Why should straight people have all the fun?
 
2014-02-26 05:15:18 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 05:15:40 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: 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.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


No, you're confusing transgender with transseuxal.  And "queer" doesn't have a meaning that specific.  "Queer" is an umbrella term that can mean many different things.
 
2014-02-26 05:15:51 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


I can almost hear the slow, stupid drawl.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:21 PM  

nakago: 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.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


Both.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:33 PM  

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.


It's not a stereotype in a lot of parts of Texas, have you traveled much around the state? West Texas is full of little towns where there are more signs for Jesus than there are people. East Texas still has a bit of that Deep South sundown-town thing going on, not typically gay friendly. Hell, even here in Dallas, one of the most gay-friendly places in Texas, there are hordes of Southern Baptists who absolutely do not think gays should have the right to marriage.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:34 PM  

tylerdurden217: There was another apparently Newer bumper sticker that read "Secede" with the Lone Flag of Texas. So his viewpoint changed and he couldn't even be bothered to remove the contradictory sticker.


Ask 10 Texans about The Republic of Texas, and probably none of them will tell you that the Republic, during all 9 years of its tenure, was broke as a joke and CONSTANTLY begging the Feds to let them be a state.

And lo, once they shaved off the panhandle for Oklahoma (because we wants to keep our slaves, yessir we do), they got statehood, and never complained again.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:49 PM  

ciberido: "Queer" is an umbrella term that can mean many different things.


That's odd.
 
2014-02-26 05:18:52 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


Exactly.  Shouldn't black people be sensitive to the feelings of racists?  After all, blacks have been bullied so much that they should naturally encourage and become allies to the people who want to deny them services.

You seem a bit dim, so I'm going to go ahead and explain that that was sarcasm.

If you don't want to serve the public, you can start a members-only club -- which will allow you to discriminate.  But, if you operate a business "open to the public," then you have to serve the public.  That includes blacks and gays and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and Greeks and the Irish.

One final point: speech alone never leads to a hate crime prosecution.  Never.
 
2014-02-26 05:19:39 PM  

Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients


They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.
 
2014-02-26 05:19:41 PM  

ariseatex: nakago: 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.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.

Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.


Which is why I suggest "quiltbag," if "LBGTQ" seems insufficient.  If you're going to use more than five letters then you need an acronym you can pronounce.
 
2014-02-26 05:19:41 PM  

jst3p: Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime

Hey eraser, I am going with stupid.


asinine is forcing your presence onto photographer who doesn't want to be around you

while not actually a sexual assault it violates a persons freedom of choice on a pretty personal level
 
2014-02-26 05:21:34 PM  

rkiller1: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.

Not what I said, Snowflake.  Deep breaths, how do they work?


Eh? You think I'm worked up? That's precisely what you said.
 
2014-02-26 05:21:46 PM  

ltdanman44: [upload.wikimedia.org image 704x857]


farking hell Gunny...them eyebrows don't look regulation...
 
2014-02-26 05:23:05 PM  

balki1867: My former boss, who was very flamboyantly gay, recently moved from West Hollywood to Dallas with his boyfriend.  I was as shocked as anyone about this.  Would it be appropriate to congratulate him on this?


Don't be surprised - the Dallas version of West Hollywood is called Oak Lawn.  Oak Lawn is thriving and fabulous.
 
2014-02-26 05:23:26 PM  

lilplatinum: Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.


the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

They should have just been better than the photographer and moved on to someone who would have appreciated their business
but they had to show him
and force him to spend time in their company
 
2014-02-26 05:23:26 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: 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.


Wow, infertile couples must hate your ignorant ass.
 
2014-02-26 05:23:42 PM  

Magorn: 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.

Lawd knows this is like trying to nail jello to a wall, but last time I heard the term try to be defined it was either people who have some sort of kink like BDSM  and so are heterosexual but not "straight" or just heterosexuals who really really hate they they are so normal and so invented a category just for them so they could be oppressed too.

/Down with the cause, just have little patience for labels and navel gazing
//insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show  them to you before you die

 Welcome to social justice
 
2014-02-26 05:23:42 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: From behind the Ironside Curtain in Freeperville, my comments in bold:

Why does Texas have to listen to a Federal Judge?

Why do the rest of us have to listen to Texas piss and moan all the time? I'll tell you why: sometimes you put up with your mentally challenged Uncle Kermit, even though he keeps trying to touch Cindy, because he's family.


"A federal judge"
ie, a constitution-loathing Marxist judge.

You know how those damn communists just love homosexuality


Our constitution is being usurped each and every damn day! This president, and all the damn libs in San Antonio need to be arrested

You and your fancy 'law degree', 'years of experience', 'education' and 'general human deceny' found something unconstitutional? Must mean it is, in fact, so constitutional that you can't take it anymore!

Texas needs to secede. This is tyranny, top down. I will gladly come to Texas and join secessionist forces. We do not need to remain beholden to the Barack Stalin thugs.

"I will gladly come to Texas and lend my fighting expertise. Texas does have a handicap ramp and hoveround parking, correct?"

One gets the distinct impression that these people have set this up long ago and just waited for "their day"...Like Soviet sleeper cells... called to activation..Just sayin'.....Nah.... couldn't be - they're just good, "loyal opposition" democrats after all...

I'd say, "Don't worry, you'll be safe in your mom's basement," but I don't think most double wides have basements.

His was appointed by Clinton.  He supports gay marriage.And his name is Orlando.

His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen.


I salute your bravery.  Make sure you go through detox before leaving the quarantine zone.
 
2014-02-26 05:24:03 PM  

ciberido: meat0918: It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.

They lost Texas.  They won Uganda.  And Russia.  In terms of the West, we're making great progress, but on a global scale things are pretty grim.


The only reason they won in Uganda is US evangelicals paying them off.  Once that money evaporates as they die off, things will change.

Russia is a different story, I half wonder if their anti-gay stance is just a facet of their general anti-West stance.
 
2014-02-26 05:24:45 PM  

Trik: asinine is forcing your presence onto photographer who doesn't want to be around you

while not actually a sexual assault it violates a persons freedom of choice on a pretty personal level


When you operate a business and provide services to the public you have to follow some rules. You can refuse service because you don't like their beard (unless it can be demonstrated that you are using that rule to exclude Orthodox Jews or other protected classes). You can't refuse service, in that instance, because you don't like their sexuality. If you don't like the rules don't profit from the rest of the community.

It isn't a difficult concept to understand.
 
2014-02-26 05:25:38 PM  

KAVORKA: I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.


No, we're that "cowboys and indians state that's big on musical theater."  Seriously, though, you get more than 3 miles from town and it gets rednecks and redskins  real quick.  And the logo from the play is on the driver's license.
 
2014-02-26 05:25:45 PM  

Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his


No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.
 
2014-02-26 05:25:54 PM  

Trik: the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his


WRONG

No one forced the photographer to do business with the public. If doing this violates your religious beliefs, that is YOUR problem, not ours.
 
2014-02-26 05:25:58 PM  

meat0918: ciberido: meat0918: It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.

They lost Texas.  They won Uganda.  And Russia.  In terms of the West, we're making great progress, but on a global scale things are pretty grim.

The only reason they won in Uganda is US evangelicals paying them off.  Once that money evaporates as they die off, things will change.

Russia is a different story, I half wonder if their anti-gay stance is just a facet of their general anti-West stance.


Almost certainly, but you can't expect to influence others until you get your own affairs in order
 
2014-02-26 05:26:45 PM  
The world would be a better place if all Texans were gay or lesbian.


/ fewer Texans in a generation time.
 
2014-02-26 05:26:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: rkiller1: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.

Not what I said, Snowflake.  Deep breaths, how do they work?

Eh? You think I'm worked up? That's precisely what you said.


QFT
 
2014-02-26 05:27:01 PM  

Texian: Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!


...so how do you feel about progressive income tax? Is tax law not law?
 
2014-02-26 05:27:22 PM  
So Farkers in Dallas. Is there anything to do here besides dudes?
 
2014-02-26 05:27:32 PM  
Also breaking, it looks like the Kentucky judge is going to force recognition of out of state marriages tomorrow (could be appealed, the AG is a D, but it's a Kentucky D), and talking about requiring the state to perform marriages in a matter of months once the legal process of new cases gets through.
 
2014-02-26 05:29:30 PM  

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


Gohmert is an East Texas Congressman & Cruz won with 56% of the vote. We are not all the same. I even voted in the Republican primaries in 2012 to try to get Cruz off the ballot. Dude is a complete lunatic.


Trik: I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients


So can I decline services to someone because I disagree with them politically? What about black people? Or men? How far does it go? Can I openly discriminate against whomever I please? Keep in mind that I work in the public safety industry.
 
2014-02-26 05:30:38 PM  
Dr Dreidel: Judging from the quotes, I think Magorn was getting pissed about needing to define every gender "role" in defined blocks, rather than accepting the gender spectrum as a reality.

And really, you're both right- people shouldn't get pissy when you address them against their preferences the first time, but you should learn asap what they prefer to be addressed as, and in the end it's what makes them happy (your point).

Also "roles" are not equivalent to actual gender.

I'm a very manly behavior based female, but I do enjoy girly things too, and prefer to dress advertising my femaleness within comfort range. I'm still a girl, through and through, and if we gave more acceptance to the spectrum, perhaps people would feel less defined by their presupposed(society enforced) gender so much that they change their sex surgically.

There is nothing wrong with changing one's sex, and if that's the only way to make you feel right/happy, okay- do it. More power to you.

My point is, perhaps if we were more accepting of behaviors that cross the "gender" line, maybe fewer people would feel uncomfortable about their gender so much, that they feel it necessary to have their sex match, to fit into preconcepts in society.
 
2014-02-26 05:31:34 PM  
As one of the minority of Texas who voted against this amendment, I am glad to see it struck down. The even better news is that Texas will probably appeal, meaning that the standing issue won't come up this time. I would absolutely love it if Texas is the state that brings gay marriage to everyone. (Especially since Texas is the state that made it possible in the first place thanks to Lawrence v. Texas.)
 
2014-02-26 05:32:07 PM  

jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.


The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."
 
2014-02-26 05:33:31 PM  

Trik: the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief


You do have the freedom of religious belief. You do NOT have the right to write that belief into law.

Read the First Amendment. THE WHOLE THING
 
2014-02-26 05:34:27 PM  

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


Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.
 
2014-02-26 05:34:32 PM  

Trik: lilplatinum: Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.

the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

They should have just been better than the photographer and moved on to someone who would have appreciated their business
but they had to show him
and force him to spend time in their company


www.amsterdamtrader.com
 
2014-02-26 05:34:44 PM  
Luckily Texas don't give a rats ass about federal rulings.
 
2014-02-26 05:36:03 PM  

Walliser: Texian: Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!

...so how do you feel about progressive income tax? Is tax law not law?


Progressive tax as a factor of personal expenditures and ability to pay is keeping taxes equal under the law.
 
2014-02-26 05:36:27 PM  

Trik: jst3p: Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime

Hey eraser, I am going with stupid.

asinine is forcing your presence onto photographer who doesn't want to be around you

while not actually a sexual assault it violates a persons freedom of choice on a pretty personal level


Bolded is true, but not the point. If you're running a business, you can't deny them based on a minority status that has antidiscrimination laws on the books. You know what you do if you're a business and you want to discriminate?
You make another booking for that day, and call to inform them you can't give them your services that day due to a double booking, and "would you like a refund of your deposit? I can recommend several other businesses that would love to do business with you, etc."

Or you grin and bear it while giving them the desired product, and act like a goddamn professional.
 
2014-02-26 05:39:10 PM  

eraser8: CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage

False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.


That is why I prefer a line marriage
 
2014-02-26 05:39:44 PM  
I find it kind of hilarious that this is happening in some of the most conservative states first.

The amount of butthurt must be astronomical.
 
2014-02-26 05:40:55 PM  

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

Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.


Gay strip clubs?
We know about those opera guys.
Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.
We know about those Thai "ladies".
Honking someone's tonk to jazz? I think your phone autocorrected jizz.

/ I'm juvenile... sorry
 
2014-02-26 05:43:00 PM  

Trik: the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief


And when the Mormons argued that very thing in front of the Supreme Court, the Supremes politely explained that "belief" and "action" are two different things, and Thomas Jefferson's off-the-cuff explanation about freedom involving arms and noses has some bearing on the topic.

Short version: if your beliefs require you to do something that is otherwise illegal, or to not do something that is otherwise legal, your beliefs take a backseat to the laws we ALL live under.

Natives don't get to use peyote, despite that being an older religious tradition in America than the Bible. The Quakers got out of the draft, but they couldn't "get out of" 100% of the war effort.

You have the right to believe gays are spawned from Satan's cock, but the second that belief spills over into denying services to a gay person, you've violated the law. Serve everyone, form a private club, or go out of business.

// or deny them service for any reason other than "you're gay/white/disabled"
// there are like 5 suspect classes and like 5 million non-suspect classes
 
2014-02-26 05:43:05 PM  

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

Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.

Gay strip clubs?
We know about those opera guys.
Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.
We know about those Thai "ladies".
Honking someone's tonk to jazz? I think your phone autocorrected jizz.

/ I'm juvenile... sorry


Unfortunately you're also pretty boring.
 
2014-02-26 05:43:24 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


fark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...
 
2014-02-26 05:43:25 PM  

CleanAndPure: Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.


We are definitely open to the interracial food.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:32 PM  

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

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:46 PM  

QueenMamaBee: browntimmy: QueenMamaBee:
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.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.

That would explain one friend's irritation with them.


I rather hope it doesn't, as it's completely wrong.  It's really not that hard to Google if you don't know what a word means.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:50 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50


I'm legitimately surprised Oregon wasn't, and furthermore, beat Texas regardless.

/Oregon still didn't beat Oklahoma, but no surprise there.
//Seriously, y'all have no idea how backward Oregon is.
 
2014-02-26 05:45:28 PM  

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


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.
 
2014-02-26 05:45:54 PM  

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


You mean the EPA regulations that could've prevented all of that? THAT bullsh*t?
 
2014-02-26 05:46:43 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


We want video!
 
2014-02-26 05:47:06 PM  

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?


My guess is because Abbot his the lesast crazy among the white males running on the GOP primary ballot for governor.  The other white male is SECEDE Kilgore.  The remaining two candidates are women, but they could be seen as secret liberals.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:08 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


This is fantastic stuff.  Over the top, but just credible enough that people aren't sure.  I wonder how many people have a typed out response, and have the mouse hovering over the 'Add comment' button.

My hats off to you, good sir.  Unless I guessed wrong and you are in fact an idiot.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:23 PM  
Looks like the tard fled the thread.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:37 PM  

QueenMamaBee: 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.


Questioning?  It's the same as undecided.
 
2014-02-26 05:48:22 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa?


Who can say?  All we know for sure is that your butthurt will be epic and amusing. :)
 
2014-02-26 05:48:28 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.


You realize that a roller isn't a brush in any sense of the word, right?
 
2014-02-26 05:48:58 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: 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.


There are 1138 reasons why you are wrong. Marriage provides a huge list of benefits that have nothing to do with children, and there is absolutely no reason except for ignorance and bigotry to deny those to any couple. My wife and I don't have children. We may never have children. We didn't get married for children, we got married for each other.

Couples who are infertile get married all the time, and preventing infertile couples from marrying is clearly unconstitutional. The lawyer arguing in favor of Prop 8 admitted that fact during the Supreme Court case, thus nullifying the idea that marriage and having children are inexorably linked.

And just as infertile couples can "procreate" via adoption, in-vitro, or a surrogate, gay couples can do the same thing. We don't object to straight couples using those means to start a family, so why would gay couples be any different? Because the biological parents of a child are far less important than the parents who raise the child. I know plenty of people who would have been better off with zero contact from their biological parents and instead raised by a loving gay couple. And I'm talking about people raised in conservative, Christian homes.

Your ideas are as valid as the anti-miscegenation rhetoric that surrounded Loving v. Virginia. You have all the credibility of a 9/11 truther or someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax. There is more credible evidence that supports the existence of ghosts than there is that supports your ideas.

I hope you and people like you live a long, long life and watch how society doesn't crumble with gay marriage. I hope, in fact, that you see the benefits of gay marriage, how we the people are better off for having it, and that you someday wake up and realize how wrong you were. When that day comes, I will be happy to welcome you into the proud association of people who were once wrong about gay marriage and now realize that it's a good thing.
 
2014-02-26 05:50:28 PM  

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


It could possibly do that next election the way things are going.  It helps that both major parties are conservative these days.
 
2014-02-26 05:50:28 PM  

Praise Cheesus: 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?

My guess is because Abbot his the lesast crazy among the white males running on the GOP primary ballot for governor.  The other white male is SECEDE Kilgore.  The remaining two candidates are women, but they could be seen as secret liberals.


BAH GAWD KING, IT'S CHEESUS!  ;D
 
2014-02-26 05:51:22 PM  

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

Yeah, good luck in 2016, GOP.
 
2014-02-26 05:51:23 PM  

Maud Dib: Looks like the tard fled the thread.


Hey now! I'm pretty sure tards would take offense to you lumping him with them.
 
2014-02-26 05:52:42 PM  

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 forgot "Colorado".
 
2014-02-26 05:54:54 PM  

PolyHatSnake: So, uh, congrats, I guess. I would identify myself as a hetero Christian, but I remain baffled as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage legality in the first place. Let consenting adults do whatever they want with whoever they want.


There are about a thousand reasons why we need marriage as a legal relationship recognized and protected by the government.
 
2014-02-26 05:54:57 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: 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.


0/10 on the troll, 9.7 on the logical gymnastics.  It would have been a 10, but it's hard to get a high score out of the Soviet judge.
 
2014-02-26 05:55:00 PM  

Maul555: 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

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


Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

global.fncstatic.com

media.oregonlive.com

www.solidarity-us.org

media.lehighvalleylive.com

baylorlariat.com
 
2014-02-26 05:55:01 PM  
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...
 
2014-02-26 05:55:33 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 05:58:12 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.


So, you would be fully supportive of laws banning post menopausal women, or women who have had hysterectomy's, from getting married, even though there is no legal equivalent to the protections offered by marriage?
 
2014-02-26 05:59:08 PM  

soporific: CountryClubRepublican: 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.

There are 1138 reasons why you are wrong. Marriage provides a huge list of benefits that have nothing to do with children, and there is absolutely no reason except for ignorance and bigotry to deny those to any couple. My wife and I don't have children. We may never have children. We didn't get married for children, we got married for each other.

Couples who are infertile get married all the time, and preventing infertile couples from marrying is clearly unconstitutional. The lawyer arguing in favor of Prop 8 admitted that fact during the Supreme Court case, thus nullifying the idea that marriage and having children are inexorably linked.

And just as infertile couples can "procreate" via adoption, in-vitro, or a surrogate, gay couples can do the same thing. We don't object to straight couples using those means to start a family, so why would gay couples be any different? Because the biological parents of a child are far less important than the parents who raise the child. I know plenty of people who would have been better off with zero contact from their biological parents and instead raised by a loving gay couple. And I'm talking about people raised in conservative, Christian homes.

Your ideas are as valid as the anti-miscegenation rhetoric that surrounded Loving v. Virginia. You have all the credibility of a 9/11 truther or someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax. There is more credible evidence that supports the existence of ghosts than there is that supports your ideas.

I hope you and people like you live a long, long life and watch how society doesn't crumble with gay marriage. I hope, in fact, that you see the benefits of gay marriage, how we the ...


img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-02-26 05:59:54 PM  

abb3w: So, that's seven dominoes in mid-topple for Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Nevada, and Texas, plus the 17 where it's outright legal already? Plus the case in Michigan that will probably behave similarly; almost to the halfway mark.


You missed Oregon.
 
2014-02-26 06:01:48 PM  

Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you


www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-02-26 06:02:01 PM  
CountryClubRepublican:  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


Wrong.

To name but one counter-example: visitation rights in hospitals.   There are approximately a thousand other such reasons.

If you are actually interested in debating the issue rationally, please try to be slightly less misinformed before posting next time.  Much can be learned from a simple Google search.
 
2014-02-26 06:02:23 PM  
soporific: Says lots of smart things
not to mention the couples who get married, and then find out they're infertile. What were they supposed to do then? Anull? Have their marriage invalidated?
I mean yeesh.

Personally, I understand why we use the word marriage, but personally I'd rather seperation of church and state that WORD, and just make them all Unions.


And Yay on the judge for use of "equal treatment under the law".
 It's what I said from the very start of all this Prop 8 Bullshiat, and why it never should have passed. And I was in high school at the time. :\
 
2014-02-26 06:03:12 PM  

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.
 
2014-02-26 06:03:46 PM  

ariseatex: drumhellar: ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...

A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.

Hey, this is America, land of innovation.  If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.


www.smbc-comics.com

Be careful what you wish for.
 
2014-02-26 06:04:09 PM  

jst3p: jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.

The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."


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
 
2014-02-26 06:05:36 PM  

cchris_39: jst3p: jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.

The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."

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


Clarification please?
 
2014-02-26 06:05:59 PM  

ciberido: CountryClubRepublican:  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


Wrong.

To name but one counter-example: visitation rights in hospitals.   There are approximately a thousand other such reasons.


To name a few more: spousal immunity and marital privilege in both criminal and civil cases, the right for veterans and spouses to be buried together in a veteran's cemetery, spousal pension benefits for government employees, immigration rights for spouses, the ability to file taxes jointly, etc.
No contract exists that can provide those rights.
 
2014-02-26 06:06:49 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: 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

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

Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]


Maul, you've been pwned.
 
2014-02-26 06:08:02 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.


Ah, this would have been true. Except the laws are written revolving around marriage. Getting married is not a strictly religious thing anymore, it is now a civil thing too. You're free to go make up some other religious ceremony that means the same thing but is specifically only for man+woman.

Funny thing is, that pesky separation of church & state would have prevented the whole mess in FAVOR of religion. If anyone on the religion side had ever bothered to say 'whoa now, these are supposed to be separate boxes!'  Too late now. So sad. They get to go on complaining about how that rule is persecution instead of a two-way deal. Maybe if the religious side stopped trying to shove its dick in the legislative side at every opportunity, then the law wouldn't have chopped it off and kept it.
 
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
 
2014-02-26 07:29:33 PM  
Ooo, I can start keeping my eyes peeled for a cute mother of the one of the grooms frock!
 
2014-02-26 07:34:05 PM  

mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.


The break room at work today was set to ESPN and Sports Center was on, and they actually said that officials from the NFL and NBA have both stated that they're watching Brewer's decision on this carefully.  Maybe the threat of lost revenue like when the NFL moved the Super Bowl out of Arizona over its failure to recognize MLK Jr day, which the state lost millions of dollars over, will push her to veto.
 
2014-02-26 07:35:06 PM  

KAVORKA: I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.


I may be late to the thread and someone probably beat me to it but, guess again.

biffbampop.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-26 07:35:32 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 appears to mean that according to their own holy book, Christian business owners are (or should be) aware that operating a public business may necessitate putting their personal agenda second behind the needs/goals of the business and yet they chose to go into business anyway. Which means we should be done here.

I suspect that's not even close to what cchris_39 was implying in his quest for gold in the mental gymnastics, though.
 
2014-02-26 07:35:42 PM  

Baloo Uriza: 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!


www.wearysloth.com
 
2014-02-26 07:42:54 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


The issue drove me to writing a letter to the editor of the Winston-Salem Journal. You know, having a law on the books establishing marriage as between a man and a woman is one thing. Going and tacking on an additional redundant voter-instituted constitutional amendment is blatant discrimination and an obvious ploy to making overturning that much more difficult. Small government my ass.
 
2014-02-26 07:43:39 PM  

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

[sports-kings.com image 800x512]

U mad, bro?


haha, so awesome

you could have also gone with
img.bleacherreport.net

get it?  Houston sucks
 
2014-02-26 07:44:15 PM  
Attention Evangelicals:

For the most part, you are the persecutors, not the persecutees.

That is all.
 
2014-02-26 07:44:47 PM  

Farking Canuck: When are these people going to learn that their religious hate is not constitutionally sound??


That is only part of the point.  Religious hate is fundamentally immoral.
 
2014-02-26 07:47:32 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: CountryClubRepublican: 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.

Wow, infertile couples must hate your ignorant ass.


Every time i see or hear the 'primary purpose of marriage is procreation' rant, my blood boils.  Wife and I tried for 7 years for children.  7.farking.years. Thousands of dollars.  A miscarriage.  A hope, a prayer.  A 'what the hell did we do?'  The 'Why us?' The hurt and jealously when we saw friends and family having kids by not even trying.  We knew we wanted children well before we were married.  The words are getting stuck.

To hear 'there isn't any reason to be married because you can't have children' crap just needs to stop.

At least we're lucky enough the children who did end up in our care, ended up being our adopted children, are so much like us when we were their age.   They may not look like us, but they sure as hell act like we did.  At least we were already prepared and used to disappointment for the 4 year fight through the foster system.  And let me tell you, I've met more than a few same sex couples who were foster/adoptive parents.  It seems, for most, if you can't pump out a crotch fruit, you fight damn hard for the non biological kids who end up as yours.
 
2014-02-26 07:48:10 PM  
Really? Over 400 posts and not one mention of Beers, Steers and Queers (by the Revolting Cocks, aka Revco)?

/First thing I thought of when I read the headline
 
2014-02-26 07:48:32 PM  
I'll give you guys 3 guesses at the general consensus over there and you can forget the first two.
 
2014-02-26 07:53:45 PM  

jtown: rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...

Omit unnecessary words.


You omitted too much.
 
2014-02-26 07:56:27 PM  
Nobody cares, only a couple politicians up for reelection in an old fart district.
 
2014-02-26 08:01:23 PM  

Petey4335: PC LOAD LETTER: CountryClubRepublican: 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.

Wow, infertile couples must hate your ignorant ass.

Every time i see or hear the 'primary purpose of marriage is procreation' rant, my blood boils.  Wife and I tried for 7 years for children.  7.farking.years. Thousands of dollars.  A miscarriage.  A hope, a prayer.  A 'what the hell did we do?'  The 'Why us?' The hurt and jealously when we saw friends and family having kids by not even trying.  We knew we wanted children well before we were married.  The words are getting stuck.

To hear 'there isn't any reason to be married because you can't have children' crap just needs to stop.


No, no, no, you are looking at this all wrong! I love when Churchians hit me with the line that marriage is for procreation, because that's when I get to slap them down so hard their great-great-great grandchildren will still have bruises. "Oh, so if marriage is for procreation only then there's no actual reason for me to marry my boyfriend? Awesome!" When they sputter and have a conniption about how that's living in sin and immoral, I simply come back with, "but you just said that the entire purpose of marriage is procreation. I'm barren. I cannot procreate... or 'go forth and multiply', therefore even considering marriage--which, according to you, is for the express purpose of procreation--is a sin. Either marriage is specifically for procreation or it isn't, and if it isn't--which the Bible doesn't say anywhere that it is--then you need to sit down and shut up."

Yes, I have been thrown out of a few churches. But it's totally been worth it.
 
2014-02-26 08:05:29 PM  

Baloo Uriza: 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.


It's gotten better, sort of.

We still have a white supremacist homophobe problem in some parts, but the unemployment rate is not 15%.

The provincial attitude is rapidly dying, something I've noticed since moving here about 10 years ago.
 
2014-02-26 08:08:04 PM  

WraithSama: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

The break room at work today was set to ESPN and Sports Center was on, and they actually said that officials from the NFL and NBA have both stated that they're watching Brewer's decision on this carefully.  Maybe the threat of lost revenue like when the NFL moved the Super Bowl out of Arizona over its failure to recognize MLK Jr day, which the state lost millions of dollars over, will push her to veto.


$he ju$t vetoed for obviou$ rea$on$
 
2014-02-26 08:10:33 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.


Ground Control to Major Bottles
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Bottles?
Can you hear me, Major Bottles?
Can you hear me, Major Bottles?
 
2014-02-26 08:17:15 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Do the violently castrated have no rights in your world?


They can't get married in the Catholic Church.
 
2014-02-26 08:25:10 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 know this might be hard for you to wrap your head around....but a private event is somewhat different from a public business.

//heheh I said "head"
 
2014-02-26 08:29:09 PM  

Urbn: Really? Over 400 posts and not one mention of Beers, Steers and Queers (by the Revolting Cocks, aka Revco)?

/First thing I thought of when I read the headline


Mine was too subtle? :-(
 
2014-02-26 08:30:46 PM  

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


Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....
 
2014-02-26 08:40:14 PM  
'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Rick Perry

i236.photobucket.com

'Go Fark Yourself' - Abe Lincoln
 
2014-02-26 08:41:23 PM  

Tresser: TFMR


now thats something i havent seen for over 7 years ...
 
2014-02-26 08:45:53 PM  
Just so everyone knows Brewer vetoed that shait sandwich in the AZ legislature about half an hour ago. Man its a raw day to be a sisterfarker.
 
2014-02-26 08:58:01 PM  

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

Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....


Mags, it was a derailment from this:

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.


See? I started out on the right track.
 
2014-02-26 08:59:54 PM  

meat0918: It's gotten better, sort of.

We still have a white supremacist homophobe problem in some parts, but the unemployment rate is not 15%.


You're right.  It's actually 19.6%.  Check your U6 rate, that's the real unemployment rate.

The provincial attitude is rapidly dying, something I've noticed since moving here about 10 years ago.

That's funny, I grew up in Portland and left in 2011.  It got a farkTON worse in that time.
 
2014-02-26 09:03:36 PM  

Urbn: Really? Over 400 posts and not one mention of Beers, Steers and Queers (by the Revolting Cocks, aka Revco)?

/First thing I thought of when I read the headline


Counted 3 so far.

/same
 
2014-02-26 09:05:17 PM  

Baloo Uriza: meat0918: It's gotten better, sort of.

We still have a white supremacist homophobe problem in some parts, but the unemployment rate is not 15%.

You're right.  It's actually 19.6%.  Check your U6 rate, that's the real unemployment rate.

The provincial attitude is rapidly dying, something I've noticed since moving here about 10 years ago.

That's funny, I grew up in Portland and left in 2011.  It got a farkTON worse in that time.


I'm in Eugene.  It's gotten better here.  Maybe our problems moved up to Portland?
 
2014-02-26 09:07:03 PM  

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

Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....

Mags, it was a derailment from this:

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.

See? I started out on the right track.


Er, THIS was your Boobies in this thread:

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

No, thank you.
They just drove the final nail in Amendment IV's coffin.


So you weren't railed to begin with.
 
2014-02-26 09:08:05 PM  

meat0918: Baloo Uriza: meat0918: It's gotten better, sort of.

We still have a white supremacist homophobe problem in some parts, but the unemployment rate is not 15%.

You're right.  It's actually 19.6%.  Check your U6 rate, that's the real unemployment rate.

The provincial attitude is rapidly dying, something I've noticed since moving here about 10 years ago.

That's funny, I grew up in Portland and left in 2011.  It got a farkTON worse in that time.

I'm in Eugene.  It's gotten better here.  Maybe our problems moved up to Portland?


The real unemployment rate is also not the U6.  It includes people working, i.e. not unemployed.  How people consider it the "Real" one is sad and amusing.
 
2014-02-26 09:17:22 PM  

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

Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....

Mags, it was a derailment from this:

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.

See? I started out on the right track.


Well, alright but you said you're piece and let it go.

This is about a really big Southern state coming under the Fed jurisdiction for their bigotry and stupidity.

/I'm just hanging out for when the fed makes Alabama give up their stupid law and well they seem to have a few stupid laws recently that are gonna need defending.
//Sad since the state can't find the money to pay for state parks and are selling them to cities or counties if they can.
 
2014-02-26 09:19:58 PM  

jst3p: cchris_39: jst3p: jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.

The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."

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

Clarification please?


My guess would be the "mark of the beast" required to do business during the the apocalypse of Revelations.

So, in other words, he's claiming it is the end of times and that doing business with the homogheys marks you as an agent of the antichrist.
 
2014-02-26 09:20:42 PM  

meat0918: meat0918: Baloo Uriza: meat0918: It's gotten better, sort of.

We still have a white supremacist homophobe problem in some parts, but the unemployment rate is not 15%.

You're right.  It's actually 19.6%.  Check your U6 rate, that's the real unemployment rate.

The provincial attitude is rapidly dying, something I've noticed since moving here about 10 years ago.

That's funny, I grew up in Portland and left in 2011.  It got a farkTON worse in that time.

I'm in Eugene.  It's gotten better here.  Maybe our problems moved up to Portland?

The real unemployment rate is also not the U6.  It includes people working, i.e. not unemployed.  How people consider it the "Real" one is sad and amusing.


That anyone other than a labor economist actually tries using U6 in any way, shape, or form, is sad and amusing.
 
2014-02-26 09:28:11 PM  
And another tasteful pastel domino falls...
While I would like the Supreme Court to step in and end this, I do admit it's satisfying to watch the inevitable slowly play out in stubborn hold-out states.
The 14th Amendment...it's just as important as the 2nd!
 
2014-02-26 09:48:58 PM  

TheThighsofTorgo: And another tasteful pastel domino falls...
While I would like the Supreme Court to step in and end this, I do admit it's satisfying to watch the inevitable slowly play out in stubborn hold-out states.
The 14th Amendment...it's just as important as the 2nd!


That is true, the satifying tick-tick-tick of dominoes falling and watching as the states rush to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

/While I await a finial SCOTUS decision, it is sort of funny.
 
2014-02-26 09:54:03 PM  

meat0918: I'm in Eugene.  It's gotten better here.  Maybe our problems moved up to Portland?


It's marginally better in Eugene, being a bit more sexually liberated, but it's still a place where you're only allright if you're all white...
 
2014-02-26 09:55:46 PM  

meat0918: The real unemployment rate is also not the U6.  It includes people working, i.e. not unemployed.  How people consider it the "Real" one is sad and amusing.


If you're serving coffee at the Starbucks and you have a degree in civil engineering, you might as well be unemployed.  It includes the underemployed.  And Oregon's not a place you can afford to live when you're fully employed in most occupations, much less underemployed in one below your ability and worth.
 
2014-02-26 10:03:58 PM  

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

Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....

Mags, it was a derailment from this:

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.

See? I started out on the right track.

Er, THIS was your Boobies in this thread:

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

No, thank you.
They just drove the final nail in Amendment IV's coffin.

So you weren't railed to begin with.


I'm not into that kind of thing, swabby, although you can get railed all you like.
You were responding to this, not the other: Follow the farking links if you don't believe me.

/Not volunteering for any kind of railing.
//Doesn't have boobies or even moobies.
//Instead of trying to derail my train of thought, why don't you go up front and pull it?
 
2014-02-26 10:18:47 PM  

tylerdurden217: Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.

I live in Houston. I recently saw a truck with exactly 2 bumper stickers. One old faded one that said "United We Stand" emblazoned with the American Flag. There was another apparently Newer bumper sticker that read "Secede" with the Lone Flag of Texas. So his viewpoint changed and he couldn't even be bothered to remove the contradictory sticker.

9/11 happens, God Bless Merca
Obama happens, secede.

I'm so embarrassed to live next door to people like this. (not literally, my next door neighbors are both well educated, liberal, and open minded.


Long story short: When the Iraq War (no, the first one) started ground operations, I went to a "Support The Troops" rally just in hopes of hearing the other side of the argument. I witnessed many things, but what still sticks with me was an old Lincoln Towncar painted with a DIY American Flag motif, being driven around and around the square by a scowling elderly couple. The wife of the pair, with huge magenta colored hair, would lean out and shout at the counter-protesters something like "STOP THE VIOLENCE OF THE PEACE MOVEMENT!!" and then roll the window up furiously.

The back of the car was plastered with bumper-stickers, evenly divided in two themes, of which these are two actual honest-to-Christ examples;

"Abortion stops a beating heart"

and

"Nuke Baghdad."


That was the day I finally gave up any pretext of being moderately Conservative.
 
2014-02-26 10:39:53 PM  

Maul555: Greg Abbot has been suing the shiat out of the federal government for Texas for years, and that is what I like.


Wow, how conservative and small government of you. You like some guy who wastes your tax money on lawsuits he's going to lose. And how libertarian of you to vote for someone who wastes that money on taking other people's rights.
 
2014-02-26 10:42:16 PM  
Hell yeah, I'm setting a date.  Me and my pet armadillo, Armani Dildo, are gonna get married!  I can't wait!
 
2014-02-26 10:44:35 PM  

MrHappyRotter: Hell yeah, I'm setting a date.  Me and my pet armadillo, Armani Dildo, are gonna get married!  I can't wait!


i2.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-26 11:00:16 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare


Can't, but I would go just because Australia gets way cooler TV shows, even for kids. H2O anyone?
 
2014-02-26 11:16:28 PM  

Trik: lilplatinum: Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.

the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

They should have just been better than the photographer and moved on to someone who would have appreciated their business
but they had to show him
and force him to spend time in their company


First of all no one was charged with a crime in this case as you mistakenly said earlier. They were sued for damages, in a civil matter.  Secondly, having read the article about this case I'm pretty certain that the photographers in question are "Christian". I use the term loosely since Jesus was actually all about hanging out with sinners. The apostle Paul later wrote that he "became all things to all men, so that he might save a few." Paul made tents, and the Romans were known for their interesting sexual lives. Paul never said anything about not making tents for Adam and Steve.

So maybe the photographers follow Old Testament God. Who demanded stoning for such sin. He also demanded stoning for a whole lot of other things but they neglected to cast even a pebble at this gay couple or anyone else.

Could it be that the photographers are ignorant twats who have never read their Bible? Say it ain't so!  They're also dumbasses for not, getting a contractor to do the work and if that still offended their sensibilities, to basically say "Oops, we're double booked that weekend, our bad."

The thing is you're focused on this one little case. Sure if a photographer denies service to gay person or a black person on that basis then no one is really harmed. There are others willing to take their business. But what happens if it's a doctor? Is it okay for a doctor to refuse service to a bleeding accident victim because that victim is gay?  It's a slippery slope.
 
2014-02-26 11:22:13 PM  
"Growing up, (with) my mom and dad, I envied their marriage because I really didn't think that I would be able to have something like that," Holmes, a 23-year U.S. Air Force veteran, said alongside his partner Mark Phariss. "And now ... reading that decision, it really was the first time I realized that, yeah, I can."

Congratulations on the civil rights victory, thanks for serving our country, and have fun with the unholy hell that people call marriage.
 
2014-02-26 11:38:18 PM  

cfreak: You like some guy who wastes your tax money on lawsuits he's going to lose. And how libertarian of you to vote for someone who wastes that money on taking other people's rights.


It's only a waste when it impacts their specific corner of the world.  Otherwise, it's small gubmint in action.
 
2014-02-27 12:06:48 AM  
I guess we know what the gays are going to do with Texas....
i1.cpcache.com
 
2014-02-27 12:16:20 AM  

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

Dema, you know I love you but there is a thread on that in the politics tab I believe so....

Mags, it was a derailment from this:

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.

See? I started out on the right track.

Er, THIS was your Boobies in this thread:

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

No, thank you.
They just drove the final nail in Amendment IV's coffin.

So you weren't railed to begin with.

I'm not into that kind of thing, swabby, although you can get railed all you like.
You were responding to this, not the other: Follow the farking links if you don't believe me.

/Not volunteering for any kind of railing.
//Doesn't have boobies or even moobies.
//Instead of trying to derail my train of thought, why don't you go up front and pull it?


What, posts are islands unto themselves? I wouldn't have mentioned it had you not started out by hijacking the thread.

/Of course you're not up for any kind of railing. You have to be railed before you can be derailed.
 
2014-02-27 12:17:42 AM  


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com


media.chick.com

 
2014-02-27 12:40:46 AM  

Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x237]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x234]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 468x240]


I'm a Christian and I laughed so hard at that I spit my coffee on my keyboard. That's so ridiculous it's hilarious. And yet, someone thought it was a good idea to print it and give it to people...  /facepalm
 
2014-02-27 12:52:16 AM  
Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas,

We fought a civil war about this.  The South lost.  Winning the next civil war is the only way you state supremacists get to enforce your attitude.
 
2014-02-27 01:12:43 AM  

kronicfeld: CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility

I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.


That gives a new meaning to "hot sex".
 
2014-02-27 02:03:00 AM  

Headso: ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

Texans should love this, their government just got a little smaller.


Ill say again what I've said before: when marriage equality is official across the country, it will be the Republicans who take credit for it.
 
2014-02-27 04:07:29 AM  

triptheory: This is currently a victory in word only. He immediately added a stay until it passes through appeals. You can absolutely expect the Rs to appeal.

Unfortunately, this domino won't fall until the SC forces it to.


To be absolutely honest, given the sensitivity of the issue that should have been 100% expected. The fact that it's been struck down at all is one of those momentum things that is critical, whether it is upheld or not.

The way I see it, it can be played as a win/win for Gay Rights. Best case, it stands and Texas gets to gay marry, which is a HUGE victory. Worst case, it gets overturned later and galvanizes the very active and affluent gay community here.
 
2014-02-27 06:55:07 AM  
Somewhere in history, Texas got messed up, really off topic. Not the same Texas I remembered in the 70s and 80s, before kids and such. It's time to straighten up, follow the will of the people, and stop pandering to the special interests, namely those that pay a lot of money, while screwing the citizens of their rights. Things have gotten so bad, a wholesale purge is required to remove the infection.Perry and his *smarter* bother Dubya need to be tried on crimes against the American people, and when after a fair trial, they're found guilty, the others hopefully will start to fall like dominoes. Hopefully I'll live long enough to see it, but in reality, the next year or so is a bit of a stretch. But I can dream...
 
2014-02-27 07:36:56 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: TheThighsofTorgo: And another tasteful pastel domino falls...
While I would like the Supreme Court to step in and end this, I do admit it's satisfying to watch the inevitable slowly play out in stubborn hold-out states.
The 14th Amendment...it's just as important as the 2nd!

That is true, the satifying tick-tick-tick of dominoes falling and watching as the states rush to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

/While I await a finial SCOTUS decision, it is sort of funny.


IMO, the drip-drip-drip effect that is happening is actually a good thing in the long run.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have SCOTUS finish the job today (or heck, years ago for that matter, but that's for idealistic dreams).  Had SCOTUS swept it all aside in one early move, I think a 'gay marriage' equivalent of the abortion wars would have sprung up, allowing marriage equality to fester as a culture war item for decades to come.

What we're seeing now is a thorough dismantling of every possible argument that equality opponents could make.   Windsor finally exposed the legal framework that every sane judge and attorney was looking for, and in its wake, state and federal judges have wasted no time knocking chunks out of this barrier.  Opponents are running out of excuses as fast as they are running out of courts to throw themselves at.  And when SCOTUS does rule on this - and they will have to - it will be the final nail in a meticulously-built legal coffin that opponents will never be able to re-open.
 
2014-02-27 08:04:39 AM  

chuggernaught: eraser8: Maul555: 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

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

Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]

Maul, you've been pwned.


ive been pwned by some asshole posting disaster pictures?  Its not worth my time to reply... I have already put this guy on ignore.   Its the same thing as posting a bunch of aborted fetuses in an abortion thread.  He is worthless...
 
2014-02-27 08:21:52 AM  

Maul555: chuggernaught: eraser8: Maul555: 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

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

Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]

Maul, you've been pwned.

ive been pwned by some asshole posting disaster pictures?  Its not worth my time to reply... I have already put this guy on ignore.   Its the same thing as posting a bunch of aborted fetuses in an abortion thread.  He is worthless...


Sticking your fingers in your ear does not change the fact that you've failed to offer a single actual counter-argument. Or argument for that matter, short of "Regulations bad!"
 
2014-02-27 08:25:24 AM  

WippitGuud: 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.

All men are instantly divorced when they get a vasectomy! They can't procreate, their marriage is invalid!


If it was that easy, I would get a vasectomy today, and give the wife eviction notice as soon as I could write one.
 
2014-02-27 09:26:54 AM  
Procreation is the least of our worries as a species
 
2014-02-27 09:39:05 AM  

Trik: the decision is counter intuitive


No it isn't.   The New Mexico constitution says you cannot discriminate on sexual orientation.  They discriminated on sexual orientation.  Nothing counter intuitive.

the photographer was forced to violate his

Nope, no one forced him to open a public business in a state that has sexual orientation as a protected class, and no one is preventing him from worshipping.


They should have just been better than the photographer and moved on to someone who would have appreciated their business
but they had to show him
and force him to spend time in their company


They had to force him to comply with the law so that this does not become an accepted method of discrimination, much like minorities needed legal protections to prevent legal discrimination in the previous century.  Many of these discriminations were hidden under a viel of religious nonsense as well.
 
2014-02-27 09:42:19 AM  

grumpfuff: Sticking your fingers in your ear does not change the fact that you've failed to offer a single actual counter-argument. Or argument for that matter, short of "Regulations bad!"


But think of all the jobs that were created by the lack of regulation enforcement. Repair work, medical staff overtime, funeral services.. and the media coverage that's going to continue stimulating Youtube revenues for -years- to come! Sheesh, you make it sound like the Waco explosion was a diaster instead of an economic benefit.
 
2014-02-27 11:25:14 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 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.


Most likely NC as well.
 
2014-02-27 11:31:46 AM  

Aigoo: Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]


I'm a Christian and I laughed so hard at that I spit my coffee on my keyboard. That's so ridiculous it's hilarious. And yet, someone thought it was a good idea to print it and give it to people...  /facepalm


Are you unfamiliar with Chick Tracts?
 
2014-02-27 11:45:31 AM  

ciberido: The "Q" can represent either "Queer" or "Questioning."

"Questioning" folks are people who think they might be gay (or some other variety of LBGT-what-have-you), but aren't sure.

"Queer" is a catch-all term that includes LBGT (so at first it seems redundant), but also includes a few more groups, such as the asexual folk (who don't want to have sex with anybody).


So, it covers a whole continuum of people... A Q Continuum, if you will...
 
2014-02-27 01:23:59 PM  

Maul555: Its not worth my time to reply


On the other hand, you never did find time to reply to any of the nearly dozen people that continually asked you to present actual counter-arguments, or any actual explanation for your hatred of EPA-related regulations.
 
2014-02-27 01:46:10 PM  

grumpfuff: Maul555: chuggernaught: eraser8: Maul555: 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

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

Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]

Maul, you've been pwned.

ive been pwned by some asshole posting disaster pictures?  Its not worth my time to reply... I have already put this guy on ignore.   Its the same thing as posting a bunch of aborted fetuses in an abortion thread.  He is worthless...

Sticking your fingers in your ear does not change the fact that you've failed to offer a single actual counter-argument. Or argument for that matter, short of "Regulations bad!"


Don't bother, he's just one need more GOP/TEA party at all cost follower of their Master's commands. I grew up in the oil patch country and still hear it all the time from the folks back home.

Most say regulations are always bad for business, and anything bad for business is bad for everyone. Never mind the pollution shortening life spans all around you. Watching friends and family die of every kind of cancer imaginable before their 60th birthdays.

That's if you're lucky enough to survive intact until then without being killed or disabled on the job site where OSHA is considered the enemy of profit and productivity.

Never mind the dozens of stories of people you know being driven into abject poverty by medical bills because they either can't afford insurance or the insurance their employers offer is utter shiat, "Obamacare" is pure communist evil that takes away all your God-given rights and hard earned cash.

The Conservatives of Texas are going to vote for Abbot, Cruz, & anyone else who fights the Feds and the way the Feds waste all their money, even if it bankrupts the State Treasury losing lawsuit after lawsuit. They are huge on State's Rights and smaller government, until another state votes for something they don't approve of, then they decry the Feds as being soft for not intervening.

They are so afraid of losing their own livelihood that they'll defend their bosses' rights to work them to death for slave wages and poison their families to the death.

And the religious and social conservatives are so convinced that "Others" are threatening their traditional way of life that they won't acknowledge that the traditional ways they believe in so dearly are either a myth or based on repressing other cultures, or both.

Change will come to Texas and the rest of the regressive States eventually. And that's what scares the social conservatives the most. That's the reason they are the most motivated to vote and be vocal, fear.

The fiscal conservatives are clinging to economic theories that have been proven wrong repeatedly throughout history and the adolescent fantasy that if only the damned tax and spend liberals would stop suffocating the creative classes, punishing hard work, rewarding the laziness of "others", and trying to take what is not theirs, that they too would be rewarded with great success and riches, which they don't want to pay a dime of taxes on, just like their bosses. Ignoring the fact that the game is rigged against them and their bosses are the ones making sure it stays rigged by getting them to vote against their own self-interests.

These two blocks overlap quite a bit (I blame mega - churches and talk radio preaching Prosperity Gospel 24-7), & they really get out the vote and the donations. It's a tough system to crack, but time and generally wider distribution of information can do it. The hard part now is Catapulting the Propaganda back into the manure piles from which it came.
 
2014-02-27 01:49:49 PM  
7 billion people on the planet and rising, and people still think procreation is the primary function of marriage.  This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2014-02-27 01:50:25 PM  

Baloo Uriza: You missed Oregon.


people.virginia.edu

Halfway it is, then.
 
2014-02-27 02:51:46 PM  

Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x237]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x234]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 468x240]


I'm blocking you so I dont have to see your one and only response when this topic comes up.  It's annoying, stahp it!
 
2014-02-27 03:53:26 PM  

cwbysfan: Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x237]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x234]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 468x240]

I'm blocking you so I dont have to see your one and only response when this topic comes up.  It's annoying, stahp it!


I'd put the probability that you're a FauxNews faithful at 1.0.
/Regulation is inherently bad because potato and suchlike.
 
2014-02-27 03:55:15 PM  

cwbysfan: Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x237]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 457x234]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 458x235]
[media.chick.com image 458x236]
[media.chick.com image 468x240]

I'm blocking you so I dont have to see your one and only response when this topic comes up.  It's annoying, stahp it!


I'm torn between laughter and loathing when it comes to that Chick booklet stuff.
/I suspect they're poeslaw.
 
2014-02-27 05:55:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm torn between laughter and loathing when it comes to that Chick booklet stuff.
/I suspect they're poeslaw.


Oh, no. They're quite sincere.

I've been collecting them for years. They're a part of why I'm no longer religious.
 
2014-02-27 05:59:30 PM  

default_user01: [img.fark.net image 500x490]


Dammit, searched for text, didn't scroll through for images. Belated well played.
 
2014-02-27 09:18:08 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: tinfoil-hat maggie: TheThighsofTorgo: And another tasteful pastel domino falls...
While I would like the Supreme Court to step in and end this, I do admit it's satisfying to watch the inevitable slowly play out in stubborn hold-out states.
The 14th Amendment...it's just as important as the 2nd!

That is true, the satifying tick-tick-tick of dominoes falling and watching as the states rush to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

/While I await a finial SCOTUS decision, it is sort of funny.

IMO, the drip-drip-drip effect that is happening is actually a good thing in the long run.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have SCOTUS finish the job today (or heck, years ago for that matter, but that's for idealistic dreams).  Had SCOTUS swept it all aside in one early move, I think a 'gay marriage' equivalent of the abortion wars would have sprung up, allowing marriage equality to fester as a culture war item for decades to come.


I may be wrong, but as a culture war, I fear that it WILL fester for at least a few decades.  As a legal matter, on the other hand, I think once gay marriage is legal everywhere in the USA, it will stay that way.

Of course you can compare it to interracial marriage, as people often do, but I think it also bears some resemblance to Women's Suffrage.  There are even today a FEW Americans who think it's a bad idea, but it's a tiny little extremist minority.  And there's no danger of women being disenfranchised in the foreseeable future.
 
2014-02-27 09:22:06 PM  

Maul555: chuggernaught: eraser8: So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]

Maul, you've been pwned.

ive been pwned by some asshole posting disaster pictures?  Its not worth my time to reply... I have already put this guy on ignore.   Its the same thing as posting a bunch of aborted fetuses in an abortion thread.  He is worthless...


Yeah, Maul, you've been totally pwned in this thread.   Nobody's asking you to like it, but we'd respect you more if you'd admit it, or at least not try to deny it.
 
2014-02-27 09:24:52 PM  

RobSeace: ciberido: The "Q" can represent either "Queer" or "Questioning."

"Questioning" folks are people who think they might be gay (or some other variety of LBGT-what-have-you), but aren't sure.

"Queer" is a catch-all term that includes LBGT (so at first it seems redundant), but also includes a few more groups, such as the asexual folk (who don't want to have sex with anybody).

So, it covers a whole continuum of people... A Q Continuum, if you will...


upload.wikimedia.org

I see what you did there.
 
Displayed 478 of 478 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