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.

(USA Today)   There are no longer any states in the US with unchallenged bans on same-sex marriage   (usatoday.com) divider line 66
    More: Cool, opponents of same-sex marriage, North Dakota, LGBT, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

1625 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jun 2014 at 7:38 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-06 04:32:00 PM  
_____//||||||
 
2014-06-06 04:38:46 PM  
grumpycatgood.jpg
 
2014-06-06 04:42:51 PM  

GWSuperfan: _____//||||||


Again with the erecting penis ...
 
2014-06-06 04:45:33 PM  
Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.
 
2014-06-06 04:47:56 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.


Some of the bans that have already been overturned were constitutional amendments. Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions.
 
2014-06-06 04:49:23 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.


It's pretty encouraging that no court ruling has been in FAVOR of allowing marriage discrimination up til this point.

I think it's inevitable that it will be seen before SCOTUS at this rate.
 
2014-06-06 04:50:38 PM  

GWSuperfan: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

Some of the bans that have already been overturned were constitutional amendments. Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions.


What he said. There are no further legal legs for any state to stand on; the federal law is quite clear. You have to allow gays to marry if you allow ANYONE to marry, and sooner rather than later. I imagine the last ban will be gone within five years.
 
2014-06-06 04:51:33 PM  

GWSuperfan: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

Some of the bans that have already been overturned were constitutional amendments. Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions.


It's not that I don't hope... but when I see success in these cases, I see an overwhelming majority of the populace behind the overturn.  Not just the Gay Folks' Law Center.  And I don't see that in Georgia.  Not yet.
 
2014-06-06 04:53:22 PM  

Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.

It's pretty encouraging that no court ruling has been in FAVOR of allowing marriage discrimination up til this point.

I think it's inevitable that it will be seen before SCOTUS at this rate.


Or they could just leave it alone. Federal judges have ruled unanimously (so far) that U.S. v. Windsor means that gay marriage bans at any level are unconstitutional. As long as they keep doing that, SCOTUS can sit on its hands.
 
2014-06-06 04:56:56 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: GWSuperfan: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

Some of the bans that have already been overturned were constitutional amendments. Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions.

It's not that I don't hope... but when I see success in these cases, I see an overwhelming majority of the populace behind the overturn.  Not just the Gay Folks' Law Center.  And I don't see that in Georgia.  Not yet.


You're aware that gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in Utah, Kentucky and Texas, right? And public opinion in Georgia is close to 50-50. The last polls two years ago had 60 percent opposed to gay marriage, but 57 percent in favor of gay marriage or civil union. At the rate opinion has shifted everywhere across the country, I imagine we're close to 50 percent support for gay marriage in Georgia now.
 
2014-06-06 04:59:33 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.


Utah's ban was overturned.  They decided to be dicks and appeal,  but still, Utah is just as, if not more, filled with fubdie derp as the southern states.
 
2014-06-06 05:04:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's not that I don't hope... but when I see success in these cases, I see an overwhelming majority of the populace behind the overturn. Not just the Gay Folks' Law Center. And I don't see that in Georgia. Not yet.


I think the "uncomfortable with gay dudes but don't think the state should get involved" people are a lot higher than the "WE MUST FIGHT THIS ABOMINATION" people.
 
2014-06-06 05:07:43 PM  

what_now: Benevolent Misanthrope: It's not that I don't hope... but when I see success in these cases, I see an overwhelming majority of the populace behind the overturn. Not just the Gay Folks' Law Center. And I don't see that in Georgia. Not yet.

I think the "uncomfortable with gay dudes but don't think the state should get involved" people are a lot higher than the "WE MUST FIGHT THIS ABOMINATION" people.


In my experience, it's the "I'm a Christian, live and let live, I can get behind civil unions, but not gay marriage" folks who make the difference.  If you can convince them, then you'll see success.

As I said - this is a social issue, and if we want it to succeed we have to have the majority of voters on board.
 
2014-06-06 05:12:23 PM  
Well then we just need to get more states. I'm looking at you, Puerto Rico.
 
2014-06-06 05:18:42 PM  

And down goes Wisconsin's ban. Suck it, Scalia.

There are 12 (!) Scalia references in Wisconsin gay marriage decision http://t.co/uDnXJgcGmM

- Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) June 6, 2014
 
2014-06-06 05:34:27 PM  
So...how is Scalia going to justify those bans in his dissenting opinion?
 
2014-06-06 05:39:13 PM  
I wonder how many states have and have not had their age of consent laws challenged by NAMBLA.

/ Please do not construe this post as an equivalence between gay marriage and man boy love.  Just pointing out how a challenge doesn't necessarily mean anything.
 
2014-06-06 05:47:35 PM  

serial_crusher: Just pointing out how a challenge doesn't necessarily mean anything.


Except that EVERY SINGLE ONE that has been ruled on has succeeded.
 
2014-06-06 05:55:30 PM  

GWSuperfan: serial_crusher: Just pointing out how a challenge doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Except that EVERY SINGLE ONE that has been ruled on has succeeded.


I agree that US v Windsor was a watershed moment.  I hope that states don't figure out a way around it.
 
2014-06-06 07:42:19 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: GWSuperfan: serial_crusher: Just pointing out how a challenge doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Except that EVERY SINGLE ONE that has been ruled on has succeeded.

I agree that US v Windsor was a watershed moment.  I hope that states don't figure out a way around it.


Send it to the Supreme Court and there's a 50-50 chance that it'll get overturned.

/By a 5-4 opinion, depending on how Kennedy feels today
 
2014-06-06 07:48:12 PM  

HawgWild: GWSuperfan: _____//||||||

Again with the erecting penis ...


They look a little slanted to me. Medication can help
 
2014-06-06 07:54:34 PM  
Oh, sure, you say this is a good thing now.  When God turns us all into pillars of salt you'll change your tune.

Or, well, probably not, because you'll be dead.  And in hell.
 
2014-06-06 07:55:09 PM  

macross87: They look a little slanted to me.


That's wasis.
 
2014-06-06 07:57:32 PM  
Only a fool would not see this being the law of the land. If you are against gay marriage, you are going to lose.  Deal with it. Don't marry someone of your same gender and get on with your life.
 
2014-06-06 08:01:43 PM  

Nemo's Brother:  Deal with it. Don't marry someone of your same gender and get on with your life.


That's what Christians have been saying for years!
 
2014-06-06 08:09:14 PM  

sendtodave: Nemo's Brother:  Deal with it. Don't marry someone of your same gender and get on with your life.

That's what Christians have been saying for years!


I'm so glad I favorited you. So very very glad.
 
2014-06-06 08:10:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.


Yeah, because only southern states have those types of constitutional amendments

Oh, wait...it's not just the south
 
2014-06-06 08:12:15 PM  
Guess the process of law is moving along apace.

Folks, you tried. You tried, you kicked in your heels, and you if you want this to all go faster, you can take it to the Supreme Court, where they'll get shot down toot sweet.

You've lost folks. Much like the folks who didn't want segregation lost. Don't worry, though. Your right to free speech and freedom of religion will mean you can start support groups at your local churches to talk about how the nasty gheys made you feel bad about your marriage by kissing one another at the court house, and made your wife make goo goo eyes about how gosh darned cute they were...
 
2014-06-06 08:22:55 PM  
God Bless the 14th Amendment, and may He keep it whole.
 
2014-06-06 08:23:55 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

Yeah, because only southern states have those types of constitutional amendments

Oh, wait...it's not just the south


Did I say that?  Jesus.  As a matter of fact, I even acknowledged that not all Southern states have constitutional amendments.  But it seems that's a little too advanced for you to understand.
 
2014-06-06 08:24:53 PM  
It's almost like sanity is creeping across the U.S.
 
2014-06-06 08:30:37 PM  

Summercat: sendtodave: Nemo's Brother:  Deal with it. Don't marry someone of your same gender and get on with your life.

That's what Christians have been saying for years!

I'm so glad I favorited you. So very very glad.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-06 08:34:04 PM  

TwilightZone: It's almost like sanity is creeping across the U.S.


Keep your voice down! We don't want the GOP to figure that out!
 
2014-06-06 08:43:57 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Did I say that? Jesus. As a matter of fact, I even acknowledged that not all Southern states have constitutional amendments. But it seems that's a little too advanced for you to understand.


After reading some of the crap you regularly post, you don't have any room to be talking down to others saying something is a little too advanced for them to understand.

/glass houses, stones, and all that.
 
2014-06-06 08:44:54 PM  

hubiestubert: Much like the folks who didn't want segregation lost.


Methinks you accidentally a word.
 
2014-06-06 08:56:07 PM  

themindiswatching: So...how is Scalia going to justify those bans in his dissenting opinion?


He's going to post a picture of his tiny, shriveling penis.
 
2014-06-06 09:00:58 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Benevolent Misanthrope: Did I say that? Jesus. As a matter of fact, I even acknowledged that not all Southern states have constitutional amendments. But it seems that's a little too advanced for you to understand.

After reading some of the crap you regularly post, you don't have any room to be talking down to others saying something is a little too advanced for them to understand.

/glass houses, stones, and all that.


"I know you are but what am I?"  Really?  That's the best you can do?  You're slipping.
 
2014-06-06 09:13:14 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Only a fool would not see this being the law of the land. If you are against gay marriage, you are going to lose.  Deal with it. Don't marry someone of your same gender and get on with your life.


holy shiat, that's the first time I've ever seen you be correct!

Good boy!
 
2014-06-06 09:27:34 PM  

LazyMedia: I imagine the last ban will be gone within five years.


The bans won't be enforced in 5 years, but I predict some states keeping the law "on the books" for decades to come.
 
2014-06-06 09:57:01 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.


media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com
 
2014-06-06 10:34:48 PM  
img.fark.net
:)
 
2014-06-06 10:41:45 PM  

12349876: The bans won't be enforced in 5 years, but I predict some states keeping the law "on the books" for decades to come.


For example, Massachusetts--the first state to allow gay marriage--still outlaws every possible sex act that a same sex couple (and most of the ones a hetero couple) might commit.  They are proud of their obsolete laws, and will not remove them.
 
2014-06-06 10:59:46 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Pokey.Clyde: Benevolent Misanthrope: Did I say that? Jesus. As a matter of fact, I even acknowledged that not all Southern states have constitutional amendments. But it seems that's a little too advanced for you to understand.

After reading some of the crap you regularly post, you don't have any room to be talking down to others saying something is a little too advanced for them to understand.

/glass houses, stones, and all that.

"I know you are but what am I?"  Really?  That's the best you can do?  You're slipping.


I'd say "get a room already" but this is a gay marriage thread.
 
2014-06-06 11:15:52 PM  

LazyMedia: Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.

It's pretty encouraging that no court ruling has been in FAVOR of allowing marriage discrimination up til this point.

I think it's inevitable that it will be seen before SCOTUS at this rate.

Or they could just leave it alone. Federal judges have ruled unanimously (so far) that U.S. v. Windsor means that gay marriage bans at any level are unconstitutional. As long as they keep doing that, SCOTUS can sit on its hands.


The irony is that if all these legislators hadn't gone all derpy and decided to ban it preemptively, the whole marriage being between a man and woman and nothing else would have sat squarely in the territory of being legal tradition, and would have remained unchallengeable, at least until a law was passed specifically overwriting that part of tradition and allowing gay marriage.
 
2014-06-06 11:18:45 PM  

ClavellBCMI: TwilightZone: It's almost like sanity is creeping across the U.S.

Keep your voice down! We don't want the GOP to figure that out!


Yeah, like that could happen.
 
2014-06-06 11:35:40 PM  

LazyMedia: the federal law is quite clear. You have to allow gays to marry if you allow ANYONE to marry, and sooner rather than later.


Given that the federal government has never argued that either in court or through a law, and in fact the only law passed on the matter at the federal level is DOMA, which was struck down on grounds that the federal government had to defer to the states on the issue... this isn't true.

The federal law is currently that there  isn't any federal law and it's a matter for the states.  Which is why it's getting challenged in each state one by one instead of getting tossed up to the USSC for another test case deal again.
 
2014-06-07 12:11:39 AM  

LrdPhoenix: LazyMedia: Ambivalence: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.

It's pretty encouraging that no court ruling has been in FAVOR of allowing marriage discrimination up til this point.

I think it's inevitable that it will be seen before SCOTUS at this rate.

Or they could just leave it alone. Federal judges have ruled unanimously (so far) that U.S. v. Windsor means that gay marriage bans at any level are unconstitutional. As long as they keep doing that, SCOTUS can sit on its hands.

The irony is that if all these legislators hadn't gone all derpy and decided to ban it preemptively, the whole marriage being between a man and woman and nothing else would have sat squarely in the territory of being legal tradition, and would have remained unchallengeable, at least until a law was passed specifically overwriting that part of tradition and allowing gay marriage.


exactly.  it's a whole lot harder to argue "you need to change something so we can get married" than it is to argue "you're specifically denying us the same rights as the rest of the country"  if i read it right, the reason that the wisconsin ruling is hazy at the moment and our LOVELY attorney jackass general was so quick to slam up the appeal is that we DO have civil partnerships, so the contest to the ban was based as discrimination due to the participants' gender... i'm sure it'll work out just fine though...
 
2014-06-07 12:30:02 AM  
Colorado has an amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. I would be interested in knowing how it is currently being challenged.
 
2014-06-07 12:37:04 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, I'm sure the challenges in the Southern States - most of which have farking  constitutional amendments telling me I'm not entitled to the same rights as other people - will be very successful.

A challenge =/= victory.  It's nice and all... but I'll be encouraged when people  other than the Lambda Legal Defense Fund get on board with it.


I understand your concern. Hell, Kansas created a office specifically devoted to repealing unenforceable and outdated laws, and they specifically refused to consider the homosexual sodomy law for repeal. There unfortunately are people who think you don't deserve rights. But even though it's not nearly soon enough, the tide is turning. Nearly forty judges, from all corners of the ideological spectrum, have unanimously ruled that you deserve marriage rights; many have ruled that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect classification that would deem virtually all targeted legislation unconstitutional. And popular opinion is changing even outside of legal groups specifically working to protect your rights. Don't give up on hope yet.
 
2014-06-07 04:28:51 AM  
littlegreenfootballs.com
 
Displayed 50 of 66 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 »
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