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.

(Washington Post)   At this point, it's easier to count the number of gay marriage bans that AREN'T facing court challenges -- but only if you can count quickly   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, opponents of same-sex marriage, Lambda Legal, United States federal judge, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

767 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-23 11:35:11 AM  
And even this article is now wrong since Georgia's ban was challenged yesterday. That leaves just four states without a lawsuit pending.
 
2014-04-23 12:23:26 PM  
Just farking overturn it already and allow gays to destroy their lives just like the heteroes can. We've got more important shiat to deal with.
 
2014-04-23 01:00:32 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Just farking overturn it already and allow gays to destroy their lives just like the heteroes can. We've got more important shiat to deal with.


Not bad, done in two.

/someone hit the lights
 
2014-04-23 01:19:06 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Just farking overturn it already and allow gays to destroy their lives just like the heteroes can. We've got more important shiat to deal with.


Yup.  We're done here folks.
 
2014-04-23 01:19:20 PM  
Think of all the money and effort that could have been saved if SCOTUS had just fixed this and been done with it.
 
2014-04-23 01:25:24 PM  
The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on
 
2014-04-23 01:27:50 PM  
I think the law in Tn is going to court soonish. I can't wait for the redneck poutrage. Also God will destroy the state because buttsex
 
2014-04-23 01:28:46 PM  

colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on


guys, free republic is leaking into the politics tab
 
2014-04-23 01:33:45 PM  

AcademGreen: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

guys, free republic is leaking into the politics tab


Yeah, right? Speaking of chapped asses...

// I don't care which farker I stole this from yesterday: "Native Americans forced to move west didn't leave a trail of butthurt this wide"
 
2014-04-23 01:35:46 PM  
I wonder if, say, 20 years from now, we find out the divorce rate for gay people is dramatically lower than heterosexuals.  Wouldn't that make the heteros with crappy marriages who say "why shouldn't he homos ruin their lives like the straights" look kind of foolish?
 
2014-04-23 01:44:08 PM  
In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.
 
2014-04-23 01:46:30 PM  

Aquapope: I wonder if, say, 20 years from now, we find out the divorce rate for gay people is dramatically lower than heterosexuals


I don't think you'll ever be able to compare divorce rates between the populations honestly, especially as the role of marriage in society changes. Twenty years ago, unwed parents were a fairly scandalous thing. Today, they're perfectly acceptable.
 
2014-04-23 01:46:41 PM  

Aquapope: I wonder if, say, 20 years from now, we find out the divorce rate for gay people is dramatically lower than heterosexuals.  Wouldn't that make the heteros with crappy marriages who say "why shouldn't he homos ruin their lives like the straights" look kind of foolish?


As a gay man I suspect that our divorce rates will be just as high as the straights, if not higher.
 
2014-04-23 01:47:21 PM  

Serious Black: And even this article is now wrong since Georgia's ban was challenged yesterday. That leaves just four states without a lawsuit pending.


As a Georgian, at least for the time being, I'm pretty happy about that. Of course it's got the bigots here enraged, but that's a bonus.
 
2014-04-23 01:51:28 PM  

colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on


At this point I find the "chaps are by definition assless" crowd to be far more annoying than the phrase "assless chaps" ever was.
 
2014-04-23 01:56:39 PM  

colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on


Arbeit Macht Fabulousity
 
2014-04-23 02:04:42 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

Arbeit Macht Fabulousity


Arbeit Macht HAAAAAAAAAAY

// dunno if that works when read, but it's making me giggle
 
2014-04-23 02:08:30 PM  

colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on


I don't know if a man who proudly admits that his anus has blown out and browned the seat of his pants should talks about anyone's choice of color for a shiat.
 
2014-04-23 02:13:05 PM  
blog.lib.umn.edu
 
2014-04-23 02:13:37 PM  

t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.


That's the thing that amazed me so much about the butthurt about "Holder told AG's to break the law!!!"

If you're against marriage equality, then who do you want defending that law?  The best special counsel that can be found, who will defend it to the best of his ability, or an attorney general whose can only make an honest opening statement is:

"I don't even know why we're all here.  I'm sorry your honors, but I'd be lying to you if I said I could think up a legal reason why these two dudes should not be wed."
 
2014-04-23 02:13:46 PM  

t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.


That will only result in Corbett running ads on tv 24/7 stating "LOOK!! GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL HERE!!"
 
2014-04-23 02:14:37 PM  

AcademGreen: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

guys, free republic is leaking into the politics tab


Ugh, again?  I thought we plugged that hole!

/Welp, better get the Raid and replacement drywall...
 
2014-04-23 02:18:03 PM  

Karac: t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.

That's the thing that amazed me so much about the butthurt about "Holder told AG's to break the law!!!"

If you're against marriage equality, then who do you want defending that law?  The best special counsel that can be found, who will defend it to the best of his ability, or an attorney general whose can only make an honest opening statement is:

"I don't even know why we're all here.  I'm sorry your honors, but I'd be lying to you if I said I could think up a legal reason why these two dudes should not be wed."


Send in some low level state attorney to give a defense like Mr. Garrison's version of evolution.

// Actually, it'd be hard to distinguish that from the real thing.
 
2014-04-23 02:21:13 PM  

eagles95: That will only result in Corbett running ads on tv 24/7 stating "LOOK!! GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL HERE!!"


Hey, if he wants to suddenly take credit for modernizing PA, after spending the entirety of his term doing his best to send us back into the 19th century, I'm willing to let him have the credit. I'll place the credit at the bottom of a flight of stairs. Since he's old and fat, he probably has a hard time navigating stairs, so I'll give him a big push. Y'know, to help.
 
2014-04-23 02:22:49 PM  

aedude01: Aquapope: I wonder if, say, 20 years from now, we find out the divorce rate for gay people is dramatically lower than heterosexuals.  Wouldn't that make the heteros with crappy marriages who say "why shouldn't he homos ruin their lives like the straights" look kind of foolish?

As a gay man I suspect that our divorce rates will be just as high as the straights, if not higher.


Probably.  I just find it kind of assholey how many people like to advertise their crappy marriages or their failure as a spouse.  Their bad hetero marriage has nothing to do with marriages in general, of any kind.  LIke saying: "well, if you want to buy a Toyota and crash it into a tree like I did, go ahead!".
 
2014-04-23 02:25:28 PM  

omgbears: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

At this point I find the "chaps are by definition assless" crowd to be far more annoying than the phrase "assless chaps" ever was.


It just wouldn't have worked without the word "assless".

Chapped army?
 
2014-04-23 02:26:47 PM  

colon_pow: omgbears: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

At this point I find the "chaps are by definition assless" crowd to be far more annoying than the phrase "assless chaps" ever was.

It just wouldn't have worked without the word "assless".

Chapped army?


Saying it like that just makes it sound like their lips are raw from sucking too much dick.
 
2014-04-23 02:31:56 PM  

Karac: colon_pow: omgbears: colon_pow: The jack booted brown shirted assless chapped army marches on

At this point I find the "chaps are by definition assless" crowd to be far more annoying than the phrase "assless chaps" ever was.

It just wouldn't have worked without the word "assless".

Chapped army?

Saying it like that just makes it sound like their lips are raw from sucking too much dick.


Haha!
Please get your mind out of the gutter.
 
2014-04-23 02:33:13 PM  

aedude01: As a gay man I suspect that our divorce rates will be just as high as the straights, if not higher.


Maybe over time when we see new generations of young guys jumping into marriages too soon, but I think the initial divorce rates will be much lower when compared to our heterosexual counterparts.

There isn't the same kind of pressure to get married, for one, and no shot-gun weddings because someone gets knocked up. Money, the source of many headaches in relationships, is usually less of an issue in gay relationships, in part because gays who have children generally elect to do so and can plan accordingly. Gay relationships seem to have a wider range of acceptable sexual behavior (mine doesn't, but we were both looking for a committed LTR).

We'll see, though. U-Haul might start renting trucks with cans tied to the bumper for lesbians' second dates.
 
2014-04-23 02:38:36 PM  
I'm not sure you can compare divorce rates because, especially at first, many of the gay marriages are couples that have been together for many years, if not decades.
 
2014-04-23 02:42:39 PM  

aedude01: As a gay man I suspect that our divorce rates will be just as high as the straights, if not higher.


I think you'll probably see it low initially, as people who were basically married for a decade or more could finally make it official. It will probably go up a bit, but it will probably float below straight couples since the concept of a shotgun gay marriage doesn't make much sense.
 
2014-04-23 03:08:42 PM  

Karac: t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.

That's the thing that amazed me so much about the butthurt about "Holder told AG's to break the law!!!"

If you're against marriage equality, then who do you want defending that law?  The best special counsel that can be found, who will defend it to the best of his ability, or an attorney general whose can only make an honest opening statement is:

"I don't even know why we're all here.  I'm sorry your honors, but I'd be lying to you if I said I could think up a legal reason why these two dudes should not be wed."


I think there's an argument that an AG who defended a law in this manner is committing dereliction of duty. Laws should be defended by people who can make an honest argument as to their constitutionality.
 
2014-04-23 03:35:45 PM  

Serious Black: Karac: t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.

That's the thing that amazed me so much about the butthurt about "Holder told AG's to break the law!!!"

If you're against marriage equality, then who do you want defending that law?  The best special counsel that can be found, who will defend it to the best of his ability, or an attorney general whose can only make an honest opening statement is:

"I don't even know why we're all here.  I'm sorry your honors, but I'd be lying to you if I said I could think up a legal reason why these two dudes should not be wed."

I think there's an argument that an AG who defended a law in this manner is committing dereliction of duty. Laws should be defended by people who can make an honest argument as to their constitutionality.


So, basically, no one should stand for the defense
 
2014-04-23 03:43:45 PM  

phalamir: Serious Black: Karac: t3knomanser: In PA, the AG has refused to defend the law, as is her right. It falls to the governor to appoint special counsel, and he has- but the special counsel has thus far not provided any evidence to support their case. They have until 5/12, at which time the judge  could make a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning the law without going to trial.

Which is exactly what I hope happens. I'd love to see these chucklefarks stumble into the 21st century.

That's the thing that amazed me so much about the butthurt about "Holder told AG's to break the law!!!"

If you're against marriage equality, then who do you want defending that law?  The best special counsel that can be found, who will defend it to the best of his ability, or an attorney general whose can only make an honest opening statement is:

"I don't even know why we're all here.  I'm sorry your honors, but I'd be lying to you if I said I could think up a legal reason why these two dudes should not be wed."

I think there's an argument that an AG who defended a law in this manner is committing dereliction of duty. Laws should be defended by people who can make an honest argument as to their constitutionality.

So, basically, no one should stand for the defense


If every lawyer agreed with the thirty-some judges who have said Windsor makes state-level bans on same-sex couples getting legally married unconstitutional, yes. There are still lawyers who think there is a legitimate argument supporting their constitutionality though, and many of them are willing to make that argument in court.
 
2014-04-23 06:07:40 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: aedude01: As a gay man I suspect that our divorce rates will be just as high as the straights, if not higher.

I think you'll probably see it low initially, as people who were basically married for a decade or more could finally make it official. It will probably go up a bit, but it will probably float below straight couples since the concept of a shotgun gay marriage doesn't make much sense.


That. The divorce rate for heterosexuals is so high because of people who get married at 18 when the girl gets pregnant on prom night. By definition, that won't happen with homosexuals.
If you exclude the under 25 population, the divorce rate for heterosexuals is around 25%, and I would expect the divorce rate for homosexuals to be similar or slightly below that for the reason Sudo notes.
 
2014-04-23 08:33:03 PM  
No Grumpy Cat "Good" post? I am sad.
 
2014-04-23 10:34:46 PM  

DeaH: No Grumpy Cat "Good" post? I am sad.

 
2014-04-23 10:35:36 PM  

DeaH: No Grumpy Cat "Good" post? I am sad.


global3.memecdn.com

/Now with an actual picture.
 
2014-04-24 04:47:14 PM  

Aquapope: Their bad hetero marriage has nothing to do with marriages in general, of any kind.


Nothing at all? You can't think of any possible correlation?
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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