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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Gay marriage is legal in Arkansas. But clerks will be fined for issuing licenses   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 87
    More: Followup, Arkansas, opponents of same-sex marriage, Bible Belt, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, same-sex couples, gays, Carroll County  
•       •       •

5906 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 2:11 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 03:21:18 PM

Mercutio74: scottydoesntknow: So what we can really take away from this is that you want to fark your friend's hot wife.

I think we can take that away from any conversation anyone has with a heterosexual man.


Yeah... that's God's way.
 
2014-05-15 03:21:33 PM

scottydoesntknow: So what we can really take away from this is that you want to fark your friend's hot wife.



*noncommital smile*

/hey, she's hot as fark.  he married "up" as they say.  good problem to have no?  my wife is hot too.  i know my friends think she's hot.  like i said, good problem to have.
 
2014-05-15 03:21:59 PM

BMFPitt: By your insane logic, if I proposed that age reductions be removed from voting, that means women can no longer vote and the term "adult" has been banned.


If you proposed that we shouldn't call it "voting" because that's what it's been traditionally called when men do it, and we should allow everyone to vote but instead call it "civilly electioning" and have government stop using the term "vote", then it would be comparable.
 
2014-05-15 03:23:08 PM

scottydoesntknow: rickythepenguin: rickythepenguin: yeah. she looks kinda rough in the second photo, the one in the story she looked hotter. ehh. who cares.


actually i'm just projecting, she bears a strong resemblance to my friend's hot wife.  upon further review the arkansas girl is nice looking, but i have to retract "stone hottie".  mos def attractive but not as much as i remmembered.

So what we can really take away from this is that you want to fark your friend's hot wife.


Woooo, sanctity of marriage!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 03:25:49 PM
here's one that should be shared far and wide...

4.bp.blogspot.com

Bible verses, mis-written signs... oh how the good old things stay the same.
 
2014-05-15 03:25:58 PM

Theaetetus: BMFPitt: By your insane logic, if I proposed that age reductions be removed from voting, that means women can no longer vote and the term "adult" has been banned.

If you proposed that we shouldn't call it "voting" because that's what it's been traditionally called when men do it, and we should allow everyone to vote but instead call it "civilly electioning" and have government stop using the term "vote", then it would be comparable.


And if I ever suggest anything remotely like that, feel free to point it out.
 
2014-05-15 03:26:19 PM

scottydoesntknow: delta_pwnd: hot off the presses from Lib rag, Arkansas Times (pay wall)
Judge Piazza clarifies order; Pulaski County has resumed issuing same-sex marriage licenses

Ain't no paywall gonna hold me down! Oh no, I've got to keep on pasting.

[www.arktimes.com image 600x513]

As expected, Circuit Judge Chris Piazza has clarified that he intended to strike down both a state statutory ban and a specific statute addressing county clerks when he ruled state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

In a letter to counsel early Thursday afternoon, he said he'd issue the order later and the amendment would be retroactive to last Friday, which should clear any question about the more than 400 same-sex licenses issued since his order.

Not long after he did as promised. He did not stay implementation of his clarified order and Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane promptly reopened his office for marriage licenses to same-sex couples. "We're back in business," he said.

Piazza's  injunctive relief provides even clearer ground for issuance of same-sex licenses elsewhere in Arkansas, and not just in the six counties named as defendants in the suit. But the attorney general's office had already indicated it would move again to seek a stay of the ruling for an appeal.

The Supreme Court yesterday refused the state's appeal as premature pending a final order and also refused to issue a stay because it noted that Piazza had failed to enumerate a statute barring clerks from issuing same-sex license. That effectively put a halt to the licensing, which McDaniel said was confusing because, in the end, only two counties, Pulaski and Washington, were doing it. It won't be confusing now with the state (and thus its various parts)  enjoined from discriminating against same-sex couples.

The attorney general this morning, in response to plaintiffs' morning request for a clarification, joined in a request for clarification and final order and asked the judge then to stay his order pending the ap ...


Go, Judge!
I just hope a few of them here in Kentucky grow some balls.
We could always rely on Arkansas to make us look a little less backwards, but now that has gone right out the window.

I'd do a mass-email, and tell them all to get off their asses, but I like being able to pay rent and buy groceries.
 
2014-05-15 03:26:56 PM

BMFPitt: The old lady on the left wants some of that.


dude in the center in the olive shirt, he's like, "dear lord in heaven and baby Jesus, i implore thee, work your wonders and please, let these two fiiiiiiiiine young white fillies start just chomping that motherfarking chonch right here and now, in your name I pray..."
 
2014-05-15 03:29:16 PM

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: By your insane logic, if I proposed that age reductions be removed from voting, that means women can no longer vote and the term "adult" has been banned.

If you proposed that we shouldn't call it "voting" because that's what it's been traditionally called when men do it, and we should allow everyone to vote but instead call it "civilly electioning" and have government stop using the term "vote", then it would be comparable.

And if I ever suggest anything remotely like that, feel free to point it out.


Like when you propose that we shouldn't call it "marriage", because that has a traditional definition and people will get "confused", so we should allow everyone to form relationships and get benefits but we'll call them "civil unions"?
 
2014-05-15 03:29:44 PM

LazyMedia: You can't fire a county clerk; it's an elected office.


Well that is a nice fall-back.  I guess we'll see over the next few weeks how this all plays out, then.
 
2014-05-15 03:29:58 PM

rickythepenguin: BMFPitt: The old lady on the left wants some of that.

dude in the center in the olive shirt, he's like, "dear lord in heaven and baby Jesus, i implore thee, work your wonders and please, let these two fiiiiiiiiine young white fillies start just chomping that motherfarking chonch right here and now, in your name I pray..."



AMEN, BROTHER!

Give me some of that old-time religion!
 
2014-05-15 03:43:25 PM

Theaetetus: Like when you propose that we shouldn't call it "marriage", because that has a traditional definition and people will get "confused", so we should allow everyone to form relationships and get benefits but we'll call them "civil unions"?


So where is the part where marriages are no longer called marriage?  Who do you imagine is being prevented from having their legally recognized marriage certificate that says "marriage" on it, as they affix the "Just Married" sign on the back of their car?
 
2014-05-15 03:45:47 PM

d23: here's one that should be shared far and wide...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x319]

Bible verses, mis-written signs... oh how the good old things stay the same.


Wait, Communism is in the bible?
 
2014-05-15 03:45:53 PM

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Like when you propose that we shouldn't call it "marriage", because that has a traditional definition and people will get "confused", so we should allow everyone to form relationships and get benefits but we'll call them "civil unions"?

So where is the part where marriages are no longer called marriage?


The part where you said that was what your proposal was?
BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?

Correct.
 
2014-05-15 03:51:19 PM
Theaetetus: I don't understand the concept of supersets.

So you've got nothing?
 
2014-05-15 03:53:25 PM

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

Thank you for revealing my true feelings and motives as a gay man.

I don't know what we homosexuals would do without you straight folk clarifying our lives for us.

To be fair, it is a surname.


Surnames are a choice.
 
2014-05-15 03:55:08 PM

rickythepenguin: there was an article posted when this story broke last week, that showed this STONE hottie getting her marriage license, and it said she was a former Razorback vollebyball player.  she was so hot my dick got made she was a lesbian.

proof god has a sense of humor.  that girl was hot as fark but she ain't down with the cock.


Yeah.  If only she weren't a lesbian she would have TOTALLY gone for you.
 
2014-05-15 04:03:14 PM

Nadie_AZ: Wait, Communism is in the bible?


Something something sell all your possessions if you want to be closer to god.
 
2014-05-15 04:27:23 PM

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: I don't understand the concept of supersets.

So you've got nothing?


Huh. I was joking in the last thread about you hallucinating and seeing words that weren't there, but now we've got definitive proof!
 
2014-05-15 04:31:46 PM
Ah Arkansas. Valiantly struggling to stay in the 1800's.
 
2014-05-15 04:37:10 PM

bungle_jr: deforge: what kind of derpfarkery is this?

if the ban is unconstitutional, any law enforcing it is unconstitutional.

arkansas

the state in which i was raised...there are some great places...little rock, hot springs, i hear the whole nw arkansas area is great...my hometown of hope SUCKS! unfortunately i have a lot of relatives (including my mom, dad, sister & her family, grandpa, etc etc etc) still in hope, so i have to go there occasionally


I've stopped in Hope for lunch and gas a time or two.  It was clearly a place where I didn't want to linger, but I didn't think it was bad enough to make Little Rock, of all places, look great.

/LR native
// agreed on the rest
 
2014-05-15 05:28:29 PM
Until this gets fixed, just offer to pay the fine.
 
2014-05-15 05:34:38 PM
Well, this IS the state that gave us Bill and Hillary afterall.
 
2014-05-15 05:42:46 PM

hardinparamedic: Arkansas chief legal counsel is willing to defend the discrimination despite the fact that he "doesn't agree with it"


I'm personally in support of marriage between any two adults, but I always found it problematic when the executive branch decided to simply not enforce laws that were passed by (prior) legislatures or public referendums (as in California).  This effectively amounts to a retroactive veto that can (at least in theory) be arbitrarily exercised by the executive branch.  That's not how the democratic process is supposed to work at either the state or federal level.

Giving any executive the power to simply ignore laws they personally find objectionable seems like a very slippery slope that could easily lead to a constitutional crisis.  If an attorney general, governor, etc., doesn't like the laws that his/her office may be called upon to enforce, then the right thing to do is not to accept the job in the first place (or to resign).
 
2014-05-15 05:48:51 PM

Nadie_AZ: d23: here's one that should be shared far and wide...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x319]

Bible verses, mis-written signs... oh how the good old things stay the same.

Wait, Communism is in the bible?



Yea, that's pretty much what Jesus was all about.  That specific term certainly isn't used (it wouldn't exist for another 19 centuries), but he was actually pretty anti-capitalist.

/ And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 
2014-05-15 05:53:29 PM

jshine: I'm personally in support of marriage between any two adults


Why just two?

but I always found it problematic when the executive branch decided to simply not enforce laws that were passed by (prior) legislatures or public referendums (as in California).

What about blatantly unconstitutional laws like this one?
 
2014-05-15 05:56:40 PM

BMFPitt: jshine: I'm personally in support of marriage between any two adults

Why just two?

but I always found it problematic when the executive branch decided to simply not enforce laws that were passed by (prior) legislatures or public referendums (as in California).

What about blatantly unconstitutional laws like this one?



1)  Why 2?  To prevent abuse of the system as a tax-dodge.
2)  The only way for a law to be formally found unconstitutional is by a court, and that can't happen if it isn't defended by the executive branch.  That's how the our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.
 
2014-05-15 06:01:09 PM

d23: here's one that should be shared far and wide...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x319]

Bible verses, mis-written signs... oh how the good old things stay the same.


And the bible quote listed has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand on his sign unless he felt that the young African-American children were false prophets who were going to give speeches in American Government converting their white children to a new god
 
2014-05-15 06:05:07 PM

jshine: 1)  Why 2?  To prevent abuse of the system as a tax-dodge.


Sounds like a bug in the tax system.  (Although as currently written, adding a third spouse would provide no tax benefit.)

2)  The only way for a law to be formally found unconstitutional is by a court, and that can't happen if it isn't defended by the executive branch.  That's how the our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

What member of the executive branch defended Prop 8?
 
2014-05-15 06:18:01 PM

BMFPitt: jshine: 1)  Why 2?  To prevent abuse of the system as a tax-dodge.

Sounds like a bug in the tax system.  (Although as currently written, adding a third spouse would provide no tax benefit.)

2)  The only way for a law to be formally found unconstitutional is by a court, and that can't happen if it isn't defended by the executive branch.  That's how the our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

What member of the executive branch defended Prop 8?


1) It might, depending on the relative and total incomes -- probably not in all cases, but some.  One can also imagine other abuses involving immigration scams, and there are plenty of examples of polygamy being a rather abusive practice.  I'm not sure why anyone is carrying a torch for that, but this is out-of-scope anyway.

2) Prop 8's history is complex, but (IINAL, but as I understand the sequence of events) it was never actually found unconstitutional.  When it found its way to the USSC, the ruling was based on a lack of standing on the part of one of the litigants -- specifically because it was being defended by a private entity, not the government ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry ).  If the law had been appealed by the State of California instead, this ruling wouldn't have been open to the court and they would have to have ruled on the Constitutionality of the law itself.  It was a missed-opportunity.
 
2014-05-15 06:22:06 PM

jshine: hardinparamedic: Arkansas chief legal counsel is willing to defend the discrimination despite the fact that he "doesn't agree with it"

I'm personally in support of marriage between any two adults, but I always found it problematic when the executive branch decided to simply not enforce laws that were passed by (prior) legislatures or public referendums (as in California).  This effectively amounts to a retroactive veto that can (at least in theory) be arbitrarily exercised by the executive branch.  That's not how the democratic process is supposed to work at either the state or federal level.

Giving any executive the power to simply ignore laws they personally find objectionable seems like a very slippery slope that could easily lead to a constitutional crisis.  If an attorney general, governor, etc., doesn't like the laws that his/her office may be called upon to enforce, then the right thing to do is not to accept the job in the first place (or to resign).


The thing is that the attorney general's office has the right to look at each case and decide if it is winnable or not.  They have the right to look at a case and based on info at hand and say that the case is not winnable and not waste taxpayer money to fight it

This is why in some state the AG office said they wouldn't fight the court ruling.  They knew that the chance of a win was so slim that it was not worth the cost to fight it.
 
2014-05-15 06:26:54 PM

jshine: If the law had been appealed by the State of California instead, this ruling wouldn't have been open to the court and they would have to have ruled on the Constitutionality of the law itself. It was a missed-opportunity.


Basically, if the CA attorney general had appealed Prop 8 all the way to the USSC rather than letting a 3rd party do it, then the court would have been forced to rule on its constitutionality directly.  That would have set a national precedent and we would not be talking about Arkansas (or any other state) having similar laws today.
 
2014-05-15 08:01:56 PM

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


Let me tell you something about the homosexual,...........
 
2014-05-15 09:35:44 PM
It's a good thing the judge clarified his ruling; wouldn't have wanted the President to send in the National Guard again:
www.sbmsteenpress.org
 
2014-05-16 12:11:24 AM

jumac: The thing is that the attorney general's office has the right to look at each case and decide if it is winnable or not.  They have the right to look at a case and based on info at hand and say that the case is not winnable and not waste taxpayer money to fight it

This is why in some state the AG office said they wouldn't fight the court ruling.  They knew that the chance of a win was so slim that it was not worth the cost to fight it.


In addition to this, the Attorney General does not have to defend a law his office knows to be grossly unconstitutional based on previous rulings of the SCOTUS - hince what Eric Holder's office did to the DOMA, letting it die quietly rather than defending it.

He's fighting it because he doesn't want to lose votes from the idiotsbigotsconservatives.
 
2014-05-16 08:00:34 AM

TheEndIsNigh: bungle_jr: deforge: what kind of derpfarkery is this?

if the ban is unconstitutional, any law enforcing it is unconstitutional.

arkansas

the state in which i was raised...there are some great places...little rock, hot springs, i hear the whole nw arkansas area is great...my hometown of hope SUCKS! unfortunately i have a lot of relatives (including my mom, dad, sister & her family, grandpa, etc etc etc) still in hope, so i have to go there occasionally

I've stopped in Hope for lunch and gas a time or two.  It was clearly a place where I didn't want to linger, but I didn't think it was bad enough to make Little Rock, of all places, look great.

/LR native
// agreed on the rest


maybe it's due to the experiences i've had in little rock...visited there a good amount my whole life, having a cousin 2 years older than myself who was raised there...and then i lived there (nlr, just off jfk) 2002-2004, and during that time i played in bands, went to ualr, etc
 
2014-05-16 07:27:06 PM

bungle_jr: deforge: what kind of derpfarkery is this?

if the ban is unconstitutional, any law enforcing it is unconstitutional.

arkansas

the state in which i was raised...there are some great places...little rock, hot springs, i hear the whole nw arkansas area is great...my hometown of hope SUCKS! unfortunately i have a lot of relatives (including my mom, dad, sister & her family, grandpa, etc etc etc) still in hope, so i have to go there occasionally


I live very close ot hot springs moved away a couple of times but always came back its nice to have so many lake options during the summer :) usually lake oachita or degray stay away from hamilton and catherine are not good options if you plan to get in the water....., been to hope to sell cattle a few times but I dont have many memories of it other than the auction house and dad getting a pretty good check every time we went.
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report