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.

(Yahoo)   The rest of the rainbow colored dominos have pretty much toppled   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, appeals courts, Supreme Court, opponents of same-sex marriage, Utah Attorney General, 10th circuit, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex couples, supreme court ruled  
•       •       •

9416 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2014 at 8:39 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-25 06:26:28 PM  
Can't wait for them to topple in the south. How do you them apples dominoes, bigots?
 
2014-06-25 06:29:20 PM  
It's great and wonderful to celebrate the expansion of so-called civil liberties, but I truly do wonder whether the supporters of gay marriage have thought through the full implications of this campaign. It must be pointed out that, in using the language of the Civil Rights movement that brought about an end to racism in this country, they are -- perhaps unconsciously, perhaps deliberately, who can know for sure? -- also drawing a parallel between the methodologies used to achieve racial equality during the 60s and what will need to happen now.

Is that not clear? Let's use as an example the desegregation of schools. The federal government declared that all schools must desegregate, meaning that no longer could white students go to one school and, using the "separate but equal" doctrine, blacks could be shipped to another. Instead, everybody had to go to the same school. Well, imagine the government's surprise when they discovered, after making their announcement, that people didn't really want to desegregate. So, what the government had to do was start forcing desegregation, busing different colored kids across town, forcing them to integrate and co-mingle. It took a long time, and lots of troops.

So now, think about this in terms of gay marriage. The government is moving inevitably toward announcing a "desegregation," so to speak, of traditional laws. No longer will straight people be able to enjoy for themselves a "separate but equal" institution of matrimony -- they must share it with gay people. And, presumably, all the other assorted sub-varieties of people that are waiting in wings -- transgendered people, furries, atheists, fanfic writers, you name it. But, if history is a guide -- and I've done enough research on the topic to know that history must always be a guide -- then we must assume that straight people will resist the breaking down of the walls they've built around their institution. The government will once again need to step in with what can only be described as the sexual equivalent of busing, backed, of course, by the full authority of the federal government. AKA, the military. Imagine, if you will, answering a knock at your door one evening and getting up from the dinner table where you're sharing the day's events with your wife and children, and finding on your doorstep a team of federal marshals with a Marriage Integration Warrant that uses the force of law to nullify your current marriage and compel you into a new one that meets the Federal Diversification Guidelines of your particular region? Sure, in gay-friendly areas like San Francisco and Portland, there wouldn't be a lot of disruption. But think about Houston. Think about Charlotte. Think about Miami. There would be complete reorderings of social communities and widespread forced realigning of sexual preference. Will that ultimately be for better or worse?

Alas, only time can tell. We can't now know the true effects of these sweeping social issues that are upon us. But we would be doing all of ourselves a severe disturbance to not ask the difficult questions, and to gird ourselves for the rapidly coming thrust of change that they will undoubtedly bring.
 
2014-06-25 06:30:42 PM  
Not yet.  Close, but not until we have a USSC ruling, and every single law in every state has been challenged and brought down.  And even then, the assholes will try to weasel for years to come, and we shall point and laugh.
 
2014-06-25 06:33:00 PM  

Pocket Ninja: <wall o' text>


Damn, man, that was truly awe-inspiring.  How long have you been working on that?
 
2014-06-25 06:39:53 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Pocket Ninja: <wall o' text>

Damn, man, that was truly awe-inspiring.  How long have you been working on that?


I'm betting a mere second, him being a ninja.
 
2014-06-25 07:06:36 PM  
Hahaha. Good-bye, DOMA of Montana. I hope all the bigots have freaking heart attacks. They just passed that shiat in 2003.
 
2014-06-25 07:18:02 PM  
Good. It's about damn time.

Folks want freedom of religion? That means OTHER people get it too. That's the free part of the whole shebang. Free to be with you, or ag'in you. You want to NOT allow same sex couple marry in YOUR church, I fully support that. I applaud your commitment to your faith. That doesn't mean that you get to forbid others from exercising their faith freely though, and there are a fair number of churches that welcome same sex couples. Then there's the whole equality under the law issue, and the right to privacy. You don't want to marry folks who are same sex couples while you're a government employee? Then maybe you shouldn't be in a position where your faith is tested by folks of other faiths, and that getting in the way of your acting in the public weal, as opposed to your private convictions. None of your damn business, just stamp the marriage license and get over yourself. Or get another job that doesn't cause your beliefs to impinge on others. Be a conscientious objector, but if you're the only clerk, you'd best get someone to cover your duties.

It's going to topple this ridiculous prohibition. It's going to fall, and then y'all can join the Hellscape that is Mass and other states that have seen local investments in property and a boost to the local economy with weddings, and more, and moreover, you'll see a drop in folks trying to get all up in your mug with their gosh darned gayness, because they'll be living their lives. And that's what homosexuals want. Not your wives and husbands, but their own. Possibly the best man's or matron of honor's too, but that's between them in the same way that straight swingers manage it...
 
2014-06-25 07:29:04 PM  
I shouldn't have read the article because now I'm sitting here hoping that Tony Perkins get hit by a bus.
 
2014-06-25 07:52:40 PM  

exick: I shouldn't have read the article because now I'm sitting here hoping that Tony Perkins get hit by a bus.


Well-- to be fair-- at any given point in the day, at least one person is hoping Tony Perkins gets hit by a bus.

It was your turn.
 
2014-06-25 08:04:50 PM  
To the "defenders of the family" I just have to point out that you had lots of chances to avoid this.

You could have created domestic partnerships for gay people two decades ago that provided the same rights as marriage.

You could have just let us have civil unions a decade ago so that we wouldn't have needed "that word" that you all pretend is Judeo-Christian specific, marriage.

Most of all, you could have avoided trying to ban gay people's relationships from government recognition, which just kind of ticked us off and made us fight harder.

But no, you just had to deny us any semblance of recognition and then tried to poke us with metaphorical sharp sticks, and now your DOMA laws and amendments are basically dead and you utterly lost public opinion.  Sad.
 
2014-06-25 08:22:43 PM  
To my earlier analysis I would add one final point, which I must state emphatically gives me no pleasure to make. Because through the federal government's zealous pursuit of these new diversification guidelines that marriage integration will require, it may be entirely possible that they find themselves in a Catch 22. For what must, by any law based in the true spirit of fairness, happen in those gay friendly cities I mentioned in passing, the San Franciscos and Portlands and Denvers of the nation? Must it not be possible there that those marshals I invoked show up on the doorstep of a newly wed gay family, instead?There are no easy answers here, none. But I am concerned, very concerned, not just for the rights of the former majority, but that those emerging to join their ranks may find themselves the ironic victims of their own success. Do we really want to usher in a new era of gay acceptance by ripping gay couples asunder and forcing them into a false heterosexuality?
 
2014-06-25 08:41:52 PM  
The jokes on the gays. Gay divorce is now banned!
 
2014-06-25 08:49:08 PM  
*wall of text here*
 
2014-06-25 08:49:44 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Pocket Ninja: <wall o' text>

Damn, man, that was truly awe-inspiring.  How long have you been working on that?


Control-c, control-p, post.
 
2014-06-25 08:50:20 PM  
Pocket Ninja, you're hilarious as usual, but if that were printed in the letters column of my local paper, a whole bunch of folks would be frothing at the mouth, screaming, "Damn right!"
 
2014-06-25 08:51:54 PM  

Pocket Ninja: To my earlier analysis I would add one final point, which I must state emphatically gives me no pleasure to make. Because through the federal government's zealous pursuit of these new diversification guidelines that marriage integration will require, it may be entirely possible that they find themselves in a Catch 22. For what must, by any law based in the true spirit of fairness, happen in those gay friendly cities I mentioned in passing, the San Franciscos and Portlands and Denvers of the nation? Must it not be possible there that those marshals I invoked show up on the doorstep of a newly wed gay family, instead?There are no easy answers here, none. But I am concerned, very concerned, not just for the rights of the former majority, but that those emerging to join their ranks may find themselves the ironic victims of their own success. Do we really want to usher in a new era of gay acceptance by ripping gay couples asunder and forcing them into a false heterosexuality?


If what you've said is true, I hope I get forcibly gay married to you.

/called dibs, suck it haters
 
2014-06-25 08:52:50 PM  
I so want to take Pocket Ninja's post and email it to all my pseudo-right-winged family, with about 87 FWD: tags.
 
2014-06-25 08:54:02 PM  

Pocket Ninja: To my earlier analysis I would add one final point, which I must state emphatically gives me no pleasure to make. Because through the federal government's zealous pursuit of these new diversification guidelines that marriage integration will require, it may be entirely possible that they find themselves in a Catch 22. For what must, by any law based in the true spirit of fairness, happen in those gay friendly cities I mentioned in passing, the San Franciscos and Portlands and Denvers of the nation? Must it not be possible there that those marshals I invoked show up on the doorstep of a newly wed gay family, instead?There are no easy answers here, none. But I am concerned, very concerned, not just for the rights of the former majority, but that those emerging to join their ranks may find themselves the ironic victims of their own success. Do we really want to usher in a new era of gay acceptance by ripping gay couples asunder and forcing them into a false heterosexuality?


They'll be too busy sucking dong to know for sure...
/Scissoring for you females
 
2014-06-25 08:57:10 PM  
I'm glad it's finally accepted as inevitable. I'm sorry our federal government failed to support civil liberties.

You know, liberals, if you want to say government can do good some kind of good, elect politicians who will have the balls to prove you right.
 
2014-06-25 08:57:10 PM  
Good.  Can we stop talking about it now?
 
2014-06-25 09:02:47 PM  
them poor gays. don't they know it's really just a lot easier to shack up?
 
2014-06-25 09:04:32 PM  

exick: I shouldn't have read the article because now I'm sitting here hoping that Tony Perkins get hit by a bus.


But he's such a good boy. He loves his mother. He wouldn't hurt a fly...
 
2014-06-25 09:15:25 PM  
FTA
"The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex. "

I'm actually curious. Is there a right to marry in the US?
 
2014-06-25 09:16:08 PM  
Hurray!  Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to the misery and financial ruin of divorce.
 
2014-06-25 09:24:28 PM  

Pocket Ninja: It's great and wonderful to celebrate the expansion of so-called civil liberties, but I truly do wonder whether the supporters of gay marriage have thought through the full implications of this campaign. It must be pointed out that, in using the language of the Civil Rights movement that brought about an end to racism in this country, they are -- perhaps unconsciously, perhaps deliberately, who can know for sure? -- also drawing a parallel between the methodologies used to achieve racial equality during the 60s and what will need to happen now.

Is that not clear? Let's use as an example the desegregation of schools. The federal government declared that all schools must desegregate, meaning that no longer could white students go to one school and, using the "separate but equal" doctrine, blacks could be shipped to another. Instead, everybody had to go to the same school. Well, imagine the government's surprise when they discovered, after making their announcement, that people didn't really want to desegregate. So, what the government had to do was start forcing desegregation, busing different colored kids across town, forcing them to integrate and co-mingle. It took a long time, and lots of troops.

So now, think about this in terms of gay marriage. The government is moving inevitably toward announcing a "desegregation," so to speak, of traditional laws. No longer will straight people be able to enjoy for themselves a "separate but equal" institution of matrimony -- they must share it with gay people. And, presumably, all the other assorted sub-varieties of people that are waiting in wings -- transgendered people, furries, atheists, fanfic writers, you name it. But, if history is a guide -- and I've done enough research on the topic to know that history must always be a guide -- then we must assume that straight people will resist the breaking down of the walls they've built around their institution. The government will once again need to step in with what can only be described as the sexual equivalent of busing, backed, of course, by the full authority of the federal government. AKA, the military. Imagine, if you will, answering a knock at your door one evening and getting up from the dinner table where you're sharing the day's events with your wife and children, and finding on your doorstep a team of federal marshals with a Marriage Integration Warrant that uses the force of law to nullify your current marriage and compel you into a new one that meets the Federal Diversification Guidelines of your particular region? Sure, in gay-friendly areas like San Francisco and Portland, there wouldn't be a lot of disruption. But think about Houston. Think about Charlotte. Think about Miami. There would be complete reorderings of social communities and widespread forced realigning of sexual preference. Will that ultimately be for better or worse?

Alas, only time can tell. We can't now know the true effects of these sweeping social issues that are upon us. But we would be doing all of ourselves a severe disturbance to not ask the difficult questions, and to gird ourselves for the rapidly coming thrust of change that they will undoubtedly bring.


I love you, man.
 
2014-06-25 09:24:44 PM  
It's about time.  Just like the struggle women are going through to be allowed to fight beside men in the military against all the "evil-doers" out there.  The gays have won the right to fight beside the straights in the war against all the others who are not like them.
 
2014-06-25 09:26:15 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex. "

I'm actually curious. Is there a right to marry in the US?


by default in the USA, everyone has the right to do what they want unless the Constitution allows the Federal gov't to restrict it, and the Congress passes a law doing so.  The situation with Sate and local governments is a bit more complicated, but the SCOTUS  in the 1920s or so started applying the Bill of Rights to the states, so if the Constitution doesn't give the gov't the right to interfere, it doesn't have that right, basically.
 
2014-06-25 09:26:15 PM  

J.Shelby: I so want to take Pocket Ninja's post and email it to all my pseudo-right-winged family, with about 87 FWD: tags.


I'm stealing it for my Facebook wall. I will return to let you know how it goes. This will be fun.
 
2014-06-25 09:27:00 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex. "

I'm actually curious. Is there a right to marry in the US?


Numerous Supreme Court decisions since 1888 have all said that there is.
 
2014-06-25 09:28:12 PM  

J.Shelby: RedVentrue: FTA
"The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex. "

I'm actually curious. Is there a right to marry in the US?

by default in the USA, everyone has the right to do what they want unless the Constitution allows the Federal gov't to restrict it, and the Congress passes a law doing so.  The situation with Sate and local governments is a bit more complicated, but the SCOTUS  in the 1920s or so started applying the Bill of Rights to the states, so if the Constitution doesn't give the gov't the right to interfere, it doesn't have that right, basically.


Alright. Thanks.
 
2014-06-25 09:29:57 PM  
Pocket Ninja: ...There would be complete reorderings of social communities and widespread forced realigning of sexual preference.  ...

A lot of guys are going to get the anal sex they've always wanted.
 
2014-06-25 09:30:38 PM  
Gotta hand it to you Pocket Ninja, although I try to avoid the "rapidly coming thrust" because some have voiced disappointment. Others, however, have been flattered. What's a girl to do?
 
2014-06-25 09:34:58 PM  
This is great and all, but is anyone scared about SCOTUS? The same SCOTUS that brought Citizens United? The same court with Roberts, Scalia and Thomas? I know they struck down part of DOMA, but I can still see them messing this up somehow.
 
2014-06-25 09:36:47 PM  
While it's probably too late for a lot of us old homosexuals, I'm very, very exicited and happy for those who are too young to have had their lives and loves trampled on by society. This is how it should be. Gender shouldn't be a consideration when it comes to marriage. fark everybody who ever said differently. I hope you live a long, miserable life seeing people around you being happy and living. It may be too late for me, but the young folks, they deserve better. They deserve equality.
 
2014-06-25 09:37:09 PM  
Not to be the Debbie Downer of all this good cheer and Pride Parties.
 
2014-06-25 09:37:15 PM  

for good or for awesome: *wall of text here*


Wall of Voodoo there.
 
2014-06-25 09:39:09 PM  
Hey, I'm happy for any couple to experience the joys of marriage. Those occasional fun arguments where your head's about to explode, those couple of times when you grow so tired of the BS that you want to get in your car and drive for 24 hours in one direction away from your spouse, those few instances when you swear your spouse is the only thing keeping you from happy.  You know, the good times.

/Been married 14 years
/my wife and I are mostly pretty happy, but damn we've had some doozies
/I couldn't imagine life without her
/especially with how farking broke we'd both be.
 
2014-06-25 09:42:57 PM  
dear Pocket Ninja:

please stop taking your medication, because serious posts from you make me question the validity of the universe. your post should always be some sort of clever troll that real the reader in, and then turn his head inside out in some insane manner.

your co-operation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

some beer drinker
 
2014-06-25 09:53:02 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not yet.  Close, but not until we have a USSC ruling, and every single law in every state has been challenged and brought down.  And even then, the assholes will try to weasel for years to come, and we shall point and laugh.


Well, no one will be weasleing my asshole.
 
2014-06-25 09:56:23 PM  

roaneranger: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not yet.  Close, but not until we have a USSC ruling, and every single law in every state has been challenged and brought down.  And even then, the assholes will try to weasel for years to come, and we shall point and laugh.

Well, no one will be weasleing my asshole.


Or assholing my weasel.
 
2014-06-25 09:56:34 PM  

haydenarrrrgh: Pocket Ninja: ...There would be complete reorderings of social communities and widespread forced realigning of sexual preference.  ...

A lot of guys are going to get the anal sex they've always wanted.


...and that's the good news.

The bad news is that A lot of guys are going to get the anal sex they've always wanted - just not as pitchers.
 
2014-06-25 10:02:52 PM  

roaneranger: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not yet.  Close, but not until we have a USSC ruling, and every single law in every state has been challenged and brought down.  And even then, the assholes will try to weasel for years to come, and we shall point and laugh.

Well, no one will be weasleing my asshole.


Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
 
2014-06-25 10:03:08 PM  
roaneranger:

Well, no one will be weasleing my asshole.

Keep thinking those happy thoughts.

With today's legal ruling, discovering a weasel in your asshole is more likely than you think.
 
2014-06-25 10:03:52 PM  
Where's the Fabulous tab for things like this?
 
2014-06-25 10:05:51 PM  

Pocket Ninja: It's great and wonderful to celebrate the expansion of so-called civil liberties, but I truly do wonder whether the supporters of gay marriage have thought through the full implications of this campaign. It must be pointed out that, in using the language of the Civil Rights movement that brought about an end to racism in this country, they are -- perhaps unconsciously, perhaps deliberately, who can know for sure? -- also drawing a parallel between the methodologies used to achieve racial equality during the 60s and what will need to happen now.

Is that not clear? Let's use as an example the desegregation of schools. The federal government declared that all schools must desegregate, meaning that no longer could white students go to one school and, using the "separate but equal" doctrine, blacks could be shipped to another. Instead, everybody had to go to the same school. Well, imagine the government's surprise when they discovered, after making their announcement, that people didn't really want to desegregate. So, what the government had to do was start forcing desegregation, busing different colored kids across town, forcing them to integrate and co-mingle. It took a long time, and lots of troops.

So now, think about this in terms of gay marriage. The government is moving inevitably toward announcing a "desegregation," so to speak, of traditional laws. No longer will straight people be able to enjoy for themselves a "separate but equal" institution of matrimony -- they must share it with gay people. And, presumably, all the other assorted sub-varieties of people that are waiting in wings -- transgendered people, furries, atheists, fanfic writers, you name it. But, if history is a guide -- and I've done enough research on the topic to know that history must always be a guide -- then we must assume that straight people will resist the breaking down of the walls they've built around their institution. The government will once again need to step in with what can only ...


If you cannot afford a same-sex partner, one will be assigned to you by the state.
 
2014-06-25 10:15:59 PM  
Originally I hoped the SCOTUS would weigh in and mercy kill the remaining anti-same sex marriage laws on 14th Amendment grounds.
However, I must say I am enjoying the butthurt that this drip drip drip approach is causing the narrow-minded and mean-spirited.
With many of the most conservative states falling, the ending is coming up quickly.
 
2014-06-25 10:16:06 PM  
I am still boggling over my home state, Arkansas, what - last month? Never thought I'd see that happen before Cali went to the rodeo again.

And now Indiana? Damn. Earlham College is partying tonight. Go Quakers!
 
2014-06-25 10:21:51 PM  

syrynxx: Hurray!  Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to the misery and financial ruin of divorce.


I'm curious if that will actually happen (or if it already has).

I guess I could see alimony in the case of two woman divorcing, where one is a homemaker and the other makes the real money, but it's hard to imagine a guy living off his ex while shacking up with the new boyfriend.

No consequence from a divorce could be the real upside to a gay marriage.
 
2014-06-25 10:39:35 PM  

Notabunny: I'm glad it's finally accepted as inevitable. I'm sorry our federal government failed to support civil liberties.

You know, liberals, if you want to say government can do good some kind of good, elect politicians who will have the balls to prove you right.


We did that in '08 only to have a minority of obstructionists get elected in the '10 mid terms and pretty much hold the government hostage.
 
2014-06-25 10:46:56 PM  
Good, just good.  Let's let this stupidity be laid to rest at last.

Let all the gays that want to marry, marry.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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