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.

(Washington Post)   No longer newsflash worthy, and that's a good thing: Courts strike down Michigan's ban on gay marriage   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 25
    More: Cool, Mich, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal bench, Ingham County, April DeBoer, Elections in 2004, Michigan Constitution  
•       •       •

1695 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 7:38 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-03-21 08:04:10 PM
3 votes:
I am stunned at how easily those who claim deep religious faith will be so dishonest in attempts to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Am I interpreting it too literally, or is this exactly what is meant by "bearing false witness"?
2014-03-21 07:46:20 PM
3 votes:
2014-03-22 12:44:51 AM
2 votes:
Good.

You don't want your church performing the ceremony, that's fine. That's for your congregation and church to decide. I have no problems with that.

When you intrude on OTHER churches, or civil joinings, then it becomes and issue. Freedom of religion, equality under the law, right to privacy. None of YOUR gottverdammt business. That's the issue. It's not an attack on your faith, it's not putting these people IN YOUR FACE, save when you decide that not getting the date you REALLY wanted at the chapel or restaurant of your choice and it turns out to be a same sex couple who got it, because they booked it earlier than you is suddenly horrible, but you were willing to accept losing said date if it was a hetero couple, it's none of your damn business.

What will you tell your children? They're your damn kids. Tell what you tell them when hetero couples get married: they love each other, you f*cking dolts.

I reiterate: you know what gay people REALLY want? To be normal. That isn't to say, to be JUST like you in every way, shape, or form. They just want to live their lives, love their partners, have a job that they really like, maybe get a house, maybe start a business, get a dog or two, maybe some cats, heck, maybe even start a farm. They want to get up with their partner. They want to fall asleep with them. They want to get the paper, and argue about dumb movies, take a dance class or two. They want to take walks with said dogs, maybe. They want to get away from things and maybe book a weekend somewhere quiet. They maybe want to head out to a show. They want all the things that straight people want. Perhaps more tasteful in decor, but essentially the same damn things. To wake up next to someone that they love, and complain about their morning breath, and then shoo said partner to shake a leg and get them some damn coffee or tea, and then make a joke about their butt as they walk away.

That's the insidious "gay agenda." Right there. In all its terrible glory. To be normal, to not attract any stares, to just have a life, full of ups and downs, maybe with some stoopid fights, and then some fun make up scrumpin', maybe with some issues, maybe helping each other through some bad sh*t, to share their lives, good, bad, ugly, indifferent. All they want is to not be judged by WHO they partner with, and y'all who are all up in arms? YOU'RE the problem. Not them. Y'all are making a ruckus, and acting up and acting out, and then are surprised when folks are less than cordial about your "concern." They just want to live a life, be with someone they care about, and maybe even make some great memories together. All they want is the same damn things you want, and that doesn't make them insidious or intrusive, that just means that they are the same as you and me, and her, and him, and just about every other damn person on the planet.

What y'all stand against isn't sin. It's about human contact and the desire to be with who they love, and hating that someone might find that love with someone that you wouldn't, but the desire, the contact, the passion, the love, that's all pretty damn universal, and you're missing the damn point. It's wanting to fight human nature. Good luck with that. In the mean time, maybe step out of the way, and let folks have their special day, and wish them luck when they join together like decent neighbors might.
2014-03-21 08:14:47 PM
2 votes:
FTFA:  "the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved."


Bahahaha!

Even more sweet and delicious those conservative tears will be.
2014-03-22 11:25:45 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the 60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism. Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple. So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?


Well, these two women would like to BOTH have custody of their three ADOPTED children so if something happens to one of them the children still have a parent.

Ass.
2014-03-21 11:40:11 PM
1 votes:
I hope some second-hand reasonable crosses the border south. Indiana is still derping hard about how the legislature pussied out by tabling the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage (and denial of gay marriage rights from other states - sort of a no-no in terms of the 9th Amendment) rather than putting it on the ballot.

It's a shame. I would totally vote for a state-wide ban on gay marriage that violates the US Constitution, just because my state is too stupid to pass laws via the legislature, so we have to do things through the judiciary.
2014-03-21 10:54:47 PM
1 votes:
Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:

i2.cdn.turner.com
Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fought this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.
2014-03-21 10:50:58 PM
1 votes:

gopher321: ...aaaaand welcome to the 21st century Michigan.


We know, we know.  And it had to take a federal judge.

WHATEVER.  I'm gonna be happy.

And I might actually drive into work an hour early on Monday and give out some congrats at city hall... assuming a stay doesn't happen over the weekend, they're open for business an hour before I'm due in.

I'm stupidly happy about this, and I'm not even gay.

About goddamn time.
2014-03-21 09:59:07 PM
1 votes:

jaerik: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?

It isn't too good to be true.  Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it.  His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans."  He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.


Very true.  Scalia intended that to be a counterargument, not setting precedent.  He was quite correct, though.  It also helps that the statutes/amendments were written by the same group and worded the same way.  As a result, if one is unconstitutional on its face, they all are, and the more states that figure that out, the greater the weight of precedent is going to be.
2014-03-21 09:39:29 PM
1 votes:

jaerik: Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it. His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans." He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.


That sends me into my Happy Place, yes it does.
2014-03-21 09:33:40 PM
1 votes:
Seriously, if the majority can't even take away Constitutional rights of the minority, why even call it democracy!
2014-03-21 09:21:43 PM
1 votes:

kukukupo: When people ask 'Why don't you vote?' and I tell them 'Because your vote doesn't really count for anything' - this is another example of why.


And nothing of value was lost.
2014-03-21 09:05:45 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?


It isn't too good to be true.  Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it.  His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans."  He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.
2014-03-21 09:05:03 PM
1 votes:
Their biggest argument against gay marriage was the "will of the people".

...of course, had gay marriage been approved by the voters, they'd be arguing that that was a Soros-funded, ACORN-backed plot to subvert the "will of the people".
2014-03-21 08:57:45 PM
1 votes:
I think it's stupid to ban gay marriage anywhere. I can't believe this is still an issue.
2014-03-21 08:19:43 PM
1 votes:
Democracy is coming to the USA.
2014-03-21 08:19:05 PM
1 votes:

dv-ous: GWSuperfan: Slate has an article up about this ruling's smackdown to anti-gay pseudoscience.

[www.slate.com image 590x421]

I'm not saying this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, but this is the face of a man who likes to suck dick, iykwim.

NTTAWWT, of course.


We'll see him on gayhomophobe.com within the next few months.
2014-03-21 08:14:17 PM
1 votes:
"This decision ... mistakenly proposes that marriage is an emotional arrangement that can simply be redefined to accommodate the dictates of culture and the wants of adults," seven bishops said.


But hasn't marriage historically been defined and redefined for those exact reasons?

/Bride prices? Dowry? Chattel?
//Anyone? Anyone?
///Bueller?
2014-03-21 08:14:06 PM
1 votes:
If only Fred Phelps had lived long enough to see this.
2014-03-21 07:47:47 PM
1 votes:
What's good for the goose is good for the Michigander?
2014-03-21 07:44:46 PM
1 votes:
Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.
2014-03-21 07:44:38 PM
1 votes:
The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND  "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court."  Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.
2014-03-21 07:43:59 PM
1 votes:

elkboy: Woot


Woot!
2014-03-21 07:43:25 PM
1 votes:
...aaaaand welcome to the 21st century Michigan.
2014-03-21 07:42:05 PM
1 votes:

Semantic Warrior: What's the count on states that still have bans now?


Falling daily.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report