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.

(ABC)   Beaver on Beaver action now legal   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 75
    More: Spiffy, Oregon, New Mexico Supreme Court, opponents of same-sex marriage, Multnomah County, U.S. Supreme Court, National Organization for Marriage  
•       •       •

6983 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 7:48 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-19 03:27:10 PM  
img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-19 03:27:44 PM  
Good. And screw NOM for being all whiny that the right of the "voters" is usurped by our constitution republic form of government.
 
2014-05-19 03:34:59 PM  

Publikwerks: [img1.wikia.nocookie.net image 695x392]


Wow, bravo. That was a brilliant way to start this off.
 
2014-05-19 04:17:34 PM  
i718.photobucket.com

www.gifbin.com
 
2014-05-19 04:51:30 PM  
About f*cking time!
 
2014-05-19 06:53:25 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-05-19 07:39:38 PM  
076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com

/obscure?
 
2014-05-19 07:50:08 PM  
w00t! Beavers!

www.totalprosports.com
 
2014-05-19 07:54:44 PM  
i wonder when Oregon can whore again with Wyoming's big brown beaver?

/got nuthin
 
2014-05-19 07:54:49 PM  
Woot!
 
2014-05-19 07:58:58 PM  
I don't really care one way or the other on this case. My preference would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether. That said, I am glad that the tyranny of the majority has been struck down. Shows that our form of government sometimes actually works.
 
2014-05-19 07:58:59 PM  
I have a feeling that given the rate of turnover here, the national court decision or bill will be coming along in the next couple years.
 
2014-05-19 07:59:57 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-19 08:00:41 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: w00t! Beavers!


Weren't they talking about doing away with the Beaver cheerleaders over insurance a few years ago?
 
2014-05-19 08:01:17 PM  
That carpet was munched long ago.
 
2014-05-19 08:01:18 PM  
Squidfight!!
 
2014-05-19 08:02:15 PM  
Unfortunately at all the wedding receptions in Oregon everyone will die of dysentery.
 
2014-05-19 08:08:31 PM  
Now everybody can get a little
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-19 08:09:12 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: I have a feeling that given the rate of turnover here, the national court decision or bill will be coming along in the next couple years.


There will be no Federal legislative action. It just isn't possible (and the recent DOMA ruling would be precedent against any attempt). The Federal government's only option with regards to marriage would be a constitutional amendment and that certainly isn't happening.

The Utah case (the first Ruling based on the 14th amendment, barring some unusual delay putting Oklahoma first) will make it's way to the Supreme Court. The appeals court case began a month and a half ago and will likely go to the Supreme court in 2015.

The good thing about this case, is it seems like the ruling will remain in force. The government will not appeal and NOM was told to bugger off by the courts (and would likely be shot down under Hollingsworth if they try to press the matter). The other states were the AG decided not to pursue the cases, it was either the governor or the legislature that took up the matter.
 
2014-05-19 08:11:53 PM  
Is that a piece of bark between your teeth?
 
2014-05-19 08:12:12 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2014-05-19 08:13:47 PM  
So awesome. Though I moved away last year, I lived in Oregon for 20 years, and was never as ashamed of my state as I was the day we wrote that discriminatory shiat into our state constitution.
 
2014-05-19 08:14:26 PM  
img.fark.net

What were we thinking?
 
2014-05-19 08:14:31 PM  
http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/faulty_defenders.html
 
2014-05-19 08:16:48 PM  
F*ck a duck!
 
2014-05-19 08:17:08 PM  
www.clipartbest.com
Wait a second, I'm the first with this?
 
2014-05-19 08:17:49 PM  
Since I can't post pics via phone, can someone post some pics of sexy beaver on beaver action? (The safe for work kind of course)
 
2014-05-19 08:21:14 PM  

LordJiro: [i.imgur.com image 350x233]


Teh dominos keep falling.  Just like SE Asia in the late '60's.  We're going to have to stop that.  Send lots of boys into harms way, with little training.
/history is a biatch
 
2014-05-19 08:26:32 PM  

strangeluck: Since I can't post pics via phone, can someone post some pics of sexy beaver on beaver action? (The safe for work kind of course)


c1.staticflickr.com
 
2014-05-19 08:28:49 PM  

strangeluck: Since I can't post pics via phone, can someone post some pics of sexy beaver on beaver action? (The safe for work kind of course)


ts4.mm.bing.net

(clears throat)  If Sir would step this way, I'm sure we can accommodate his wishes.....
 
2014-05-19 08:29:51 PM  
Great, so now when do we legalize polygamy?

I know polygamists are not considered a protected group and all, but I can't find the logic in preventing multiple consenting adults from entering into the bonds of marriage?

I think the government needs to keep their nose out of marriage for the most part.  I feel it is a freedom of religion issue and that many religions allow polygamy and therefor our government should be more accommodating of polygamy.
 
2014-05-19 08:34:23 PM  
Here's what Arkansas is throwin' down...

4.bp.blogspot.com

Let's see what you got Oregon...
 
2014-05-19 08:36:06 PM  
Stay away National Organization for Marriage. Your hateful group is not wanted here or anywhere else.
 
2014-05-19 08:37:14 PM  
The Flexecutioner: i wonder when Oregon can whore again with Wyoming's Wynona's big brown beaver?

/got nuthin

//not much else
 
2014-05-19 08:37:37 PM  
He's got wood

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-19 08:39:27 PM  

Mark Ratner: [076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcd n .com image 510x510]

/obscure?


Shirley, you can't be serious.
 
2014-05-19 08:40:51 PM  
Beaver on Beaver action is how we get dental dams. Or is it the other way around?

/hooray for social justice in my state

strangeluck: Since I can't post pics via phone, can someone post some pics of sexy beaver on beaver action? (The safe for work kind of course)


media.oregonlive.com
 
2014-05-19 08:44:02 PM  

some_beer_drinker: Mark Ratner: [076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcd n .com image 510x510]

/obscure?

Shirley, you can't be serious.


m.quickmeme.com
/obscure?
 
2014-05-19 08:45:15 PM  
THIRTEEN STATES?

IN A ROW?
 
2014-05-19 08:53:21 PM  
media.giphy.com
 
2014-05-19 09:05:34 PM  
So much for my signature on that initiative to repeal it.

Thanks a lot!! Stupid activist judge ;P
 
2014-05-19 09:08:17 PM  

Ravage: I don't really care one way or the other on this case. My preference would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether. That said, I am glad that the tyranny of the majority has been struck down. Shows that our form of government sometimes actually works.


Think of the jobs program when they move to one or more spouses.  1,012,012,059 forms and input screens will need to be edited.

Job Jobs Jobs.  It will be y2k x2
 
2014-05-19 09:08:44 PM  

Jeng: Great, so now when do we legalize polygamy?

I know polygamists are not considered a protected group and all, but I can't find the logic in preventing multiple consenting adults from entering into the bonds of marriage?

I think the government needs to keep their nose out of marriage for the most part.  I feel it is a freedom of religion issue and that many religions allow polygamy and therefor our government should be more accommodating of polygamy.


Intestacy laws make polygamy unworkable.

Example: A man is married to three women. He dies and does not have a will.

Who gets what? How much should each wife get? Should it be dependent on the length of time a given wife was married to the man at the time of his death? Or maybe some other criteria should be used? What about children in cases where there is no surviving spouse? Which children, from which spouse, in what order should be entitled to inherit what? The law is what must be applied when someone dies intestate, and the law has no mechanism for dealing with multiple marriages.

In monogamy, it's usually pretty simple: The surviving spouse gets (in most cases) everything.
 
2014-05-19 09:14:57 PM  
Anything that pisses off the religious self-righteous makes me happy.
 
2014-05-19 09:20:26 PM  

DeadPhelps: Jeng: Great, so now when do we legalize polygamy?

I know polygamists are not considered a protected group and all, but I can't find the logic in preventing multiple consenting adults from entering into the bonds of marriage?

I think the government needs to keep their nose out of marriage for the most part.  I feel it is a freedom of religion issue and that many religions allow polygamy and therefor our government should be more accommodating of polygamy.

Intestacy laws make polygamy unworkable.

Example: A man is married to three women. He dies and does not have a will.

Who gets what? How much should each wife get? Should it be dependent on the length of time a given wife was married to the man at the time of his death? Or maybe some other criteria should be used? What about children in cases where there is no surviving spouse? Which children, from which spouse, in what order should be entitled to inherit what? The law is what must be applied when someone dies intestate, and the law has no mechanism for dealing with multiple marriages.

In monogamy, it's usually pretty simple: The surviving spouse gets (in most cases) everything.


Easy.  You implement what we have now.  She who is married last gets 2/3.  everyone else splits up the remaining 1/3, with the next wife getting 2/3 of the remainder.

It makes it easy.  It also makes it so women will be on their good behavior and keep hubby happy or else he picks up another one and cuts her share.
 
2014-05-19 09:22:44 PM  
vs right now,  where it is "go eff yourself" after she determines that it is more expensive to get rid of her than to keep her.
 
2014-05-19 09:26:29 PM  

DeadPhelps: Intestacy laws make polygamy unworkable.

Example: A man is married to three women. He dies and does not have a will.

Who gets what? How much should each wife get? Should it be dependent on the length of time a given wife was married to the man at the time of his death? Or maybe some other criteria should be used? What about children in cases where there is no surviving spouse? Which children, from which spouse, in what order should be entitled to inherit what? The law is what must be applied when someone dies intestate, and the law has no mechanism for dealing with multiple marriages.



The solution to that issue is called a Will, the alternative is a prenuptial agreement.

But just because the law might have some difficulties with my life choices, that does not mean the law needs to stop me from making those choices.

Laws are meant to help people with their lives, not stop people from enjoying their lives.
 
2014-05-19 09:35:00 PM  
good, the dominoes keep on a falling.
 
2014-05-19 09:35:23 PM  

DeadPhelps: Intestacy laws make polygamy unworkable.

Example: A man is married to three women. He dies and does not have a will.

Who gets what? How much should each wife get?


The Turtle everyone will be required to marry gets dibs.
 
2014-05-19 09:48:35 PM  
i759.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 75 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