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 154
    More: NewsFlash, Texas, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal courts  
•       •       •

22968 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

2014-02-26 03:41:11 PM
10 votes:
lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.
2014-02-26 03:53:24 PM
9 votes:
I have a dream that one day "Judge affirms basic civil right" will not be a Fark newsflash worthy headline.
2014-02-26 03:41:49 PM
8 votes:
Soon... (I hope)

img.fark.net

2014-02-26 03:44:28 PM
7 votes:
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 03:42:37 PM
6 votes:
 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 04:00:12 PM
5 votes:
It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.
2014-02-26 05:10:19 PM
4 votes:

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 04:46:47 PM
4 votes:
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 03:42:27 PM
4 votes:
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 03:41:18 PM
4 votes:
__________//||||||||||||||

Add another one to the pile.
2014-02-26 06:41:35 PM
3 votes:

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 05:48:58 PM
3 votes:

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 05:18:52 PM
3 votes:

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 05:11:17 PM
3 votes:

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 04:55:04 PM
3 votes:

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 04:53:13 PM
3 votes:

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage


False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.
2014-02-26 04:29:48 PM
3 votes:

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 04:18:35 PM
3 votes:

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 03:57:26 PM
3 votes:

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 03:54:07 PM
3 votes:
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 03:48:12 PM
3 votes:

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 03:45:23 PM
3 votes:
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 03:41:48 PM
3 votes:
www.screeninsults.com
2014-02-26 06:50:14 PM
2 votes:

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 06:46:28 PM
2 votes:

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 06:25:44 PM
2 votes:

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 06:02:01 PM
2 votes:
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 05:51:22 PM
2 votes:

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 05:33:31 PM
2 votes:

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 04:54:22 PM
2 votes:

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 04:51:51 PM
2 votes:

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 04:51:48 PM
2 votes:

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 04:51:38 PM
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-26 04:44:00 PM
2 votes:

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 04:18:19 PM
2 votes:

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 04:17:51 PM
2 votes:
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 04:15:18 PM
2 votes:

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 04:14:02 PM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-02-26 04:06:35 PM
2 votes:

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 04:03:06 PM
2 votes:

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 04:00:19 PM
2 votes:
Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.
2014-02-26 03:59:32 PM
2 votes:
"no rational relation" to legitimate government

Is that legalspeak for "Your law is bad and you should FEEL bad"?
2014-02-26 03:59:15 PM
2 votes:
Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! That's all I can say!
2014-02-26 03:54:16 PM
2 votes:

'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 03:51:44 PM
2 votes:
When are these people going to learn that their religious hate is not constitutionally sound??
2014-02-26 03:48:33 PM
2 votes:

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 03:47:13 PM
2 votes:
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 03:44:53 PM
2 votes:

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 03:42:12 PM
2 votes:
Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.
2014-02-26 03:41:23 PM
2 votes:
Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.
2014-02-27 05:55:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:39:05 AM
1 votes:

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 08:21:52 AM
1 votes:

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 12:40:46 AM
1 votes:

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
2014-02-26 10:39:53 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:11 PM
1 votes:
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 08:45:53 PM
1 votes:
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 08:40:14 PM
1 votes:
'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 07:44:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:44:15 PM
1 votes:
Attention Evangelicals:

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

That is all.
2014-02-26 07:28:03 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:31 PM
1 votes:
..

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 07:16:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:34 PM
1 votes:

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 06:37:57 PM
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-26 06:37:26 PM
1 votes:

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 06:35:40 PM
1 votes:

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 06:29:16 PM
1 votes:

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


You missed Texas Furry Fiesta last weekend.
2014-02-26 06:27:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:15:24 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:02 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:59 PM
1 votes:

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 06:02:23 PM
1 votes:
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 05:55:01 PM
1 votes:
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 05:45:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:28 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:00 PM
1 votes:

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 05:36:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:34 PM
1 votes:
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 05:30:38 PM
1 votes:
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 05:25:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:24:45 PM
1 votes:

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 05:24:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:39 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:15:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:17 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:04:24 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:47 PM
1 votes:
Welcome to the 21st Century, Texas.

I hope the bigots in your state don't drag you back to the 19th.
2014-02-26 04:55:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:30 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:56 PM
1 votes:

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


Fear
2014-02-26 04:42:15 PM
1 votes:
Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?
2014-02-26 04:38:46 PM
1 votes:
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 04:38:04 PM
1 votes:

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


i.imgur.com

...blows something.
2014-02-26 04:36:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:24 PM
1 votes:
Suck it, cons.  Suck it long and suck it hard.
2014-02-26 04:27:07 PM
1 votes:
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 04:26:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:55 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:01 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:40 PM
1 votes:
And from that wonderful source of unabated derp known as free republic -- Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.
2014-02-26 04:19:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:18:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:18:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:55 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:44 PM
1 votes:
I guess there will be another gay pride parade in Austin.

/about damn time
//suck it, bigots!
2014-02-26 04:09:25 PM
1 votes:
Good.


And good headline.
2014-02-26 04:07:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:50 PM
1 votes:
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 04:03:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:59 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:47 PM
1 votes:

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


Omit unnecessary words.
2014-02-26 04:01:06 PM
1 votes:

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

Let that peculate for a while.


i.chzbgr.com
2014-02-26 04:00:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:43 PM
1 votes:
+1 for the headline subster!
2014-02-26 03:58:20 PM
1 votes:

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


Stack waits in antici ...

...

... -pation.

www.hghhelp.com
2014-02-26 03:57:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:24 PM
1 votes:
Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.
2014-02-26 03:53:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:44 PM
1 votes:
Separation of church and state is not only confusing to some, but offensive.
2014-02-26 03:49:13 PM
1 votes:
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 03:48:57 PM
1 votes:
Maybe you can come over later and fark my sister!
2014-02-26 03:48:41 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2014-02-26 03:47:40 PM
1 votes:
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 03:47:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:47:10 PM
1 votes:

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


He's gonna blow something.

www.pensitoreview.com
2014-02-26 03:46:43 PM
1 votes:
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 03:44:29 PM
1 votes:
Taking bets on the next state to overturn their bans.
Mine are Ohio and North Carolina
2014-02-26 03:44:08 PM
1 votes:
They'll let it slide - but fer Keeerist's sake, don't serve chili with beans at them same-sex weddings!
2014-02-26 03:44:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:59 PM
1 votes:
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 03:43:58 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:45 PM
1 votes:
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 03:43:33 PM
1 votes:
Well played, subby.  *toasts a Shiner Bock*
2014-02-26 03:43:26 PM
1 votes:
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 03:43:23 PM
1 votes:
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 03:43:19 PM
1 votes:
I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report