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.

(ABC News)   Gay marriage suffers its first victory in federal court since its first defeat in federal court. Suck it, libs   (abcnews.go.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, regulations, 7th Circuit, opponents of same-sex marriage, Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. Constitution, Attorneys General of Wisconsin, unanimous decision  
•       •       •

3368 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2014 at 5:48 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-09-04 05:30:46 PM  
Posner wrote the decision, available here.
Interestingly, he finds homosexuals to be a suspect class for equal protection, something many other courts hesitated to do, requiring heightened scrutiny. But, as with those other courts, he finds that the states failed to give even sufficient reasons to meet the lower rational basis test.

And lolz abound:
Subsequent decisions such as Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620, 634 - 36 (1996); Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 55 8, 577 - 79 (2003), and United States v. Windsor are distinguishable from the present two cases but make clear that Baker is no longer authoritative. At least we think they're distinguishable. But Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion in Lawrence , 539 U.S. at 586, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, thought not. He wrote that "principle and logic" would require the Court, given its decision in Lawrence, to hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Id. at 605.
 
2014-09-04 05:32:00 PM  
Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can't produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can't produce children. The state's arg ment that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a "model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women" is impossible to take seriously.
 
2014-09-04 05:34:16 PM  
Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

makeameme.org
I don't always like Posner, but when I do, I really like Posner.
 
2014-09-04 05:42:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

[makeameme.org image 250x250]
I don't always like Posner, but when I do, I really like Posner.


Yeah. This is the opinion he was born to write.
 
2014-09-04 05:46:49 PM  
And fourth, [Wisconsin argues that] same-sex marriage is analogous in its effects to no-fault divorce, which, the state argues, makes marriage fragile and unreliable - though of course Wisconsin has no-fault divorce, and it's surprising that the state's assistant attorney general, who argued the state's appeal, would trash his own state's law.

Teehee!
 
2014-09-04 05:49:11 PM  
There are nicer ways to ask for a beej, subby.
 
2014-09-04 05:51:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

[makeameme.org image 250x250]
I don't always like Posner, but when I do, I really like Posner.


He actually wrote "Go figure" in his opinion? That's the best thing I've ever heard.
 
2014-09-04 05:51:22 PM  
I particularly liked this section wrapping from page 21 to 22:

Married homosexuals are more likely to want to adopt than unmarried ones if only because of the many state and federal benefits to which married people are entitled. And so same-sex marriage improves the prospects of unintended children by increasing the number and resources of prospective adopters. Notably, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt foster children than opposite-sex couples are. Gates, "LGBT Parenting in the United States," supra, at 3. As of 2011, there were some 400,000 American children in foster care, of whom 10,800 were in Indiana and about 6500 in Wisconsin. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Children's Bureau, "How Many Children Are in Foster Care in the U.S.? In My State?" www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/faq/foster-care

Also, the more willing adopters there are, not only the fewer children there will be in foster care or being raised by single mothers but also the fewer abortions there will be. Carrying a baby to term and putting the baby up for adoption is an alternative to abortion for a pregnant woman who thinks that as a single mother she could not cope with the baby. The pro-life community recognizes this. See, e.g., Students for Life of America, "Adoption, Another Option," http://studentsforlife.org/res.../organize-an-event/adoption: "There may be times when a mother facing an unplanned pregnancy may feel completely unequipped to parent her child. She may feel her only option is to kill her pre-born child. Pro-life individuals touch lives by helping women place their baby or child for adoption. It is important to show women on your campus that adoption can be the answer to all of her fears."


So what's a bigger sin, Christians: a woman getting an abortion instead of giving up the kid for adoption, or letting a same-sex couple get married to provide the best possible outcome for their adopted kids?
 
2014-09-04 05:52:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Theaetetus: Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

[makeameme.org image 250x250]
I don't always like Posner, but when I do, I really like Posner.

He actually wrote "Go figure" in his opinion? That's the best thing I've ever heard.


Yes, he seriously wrote "Go figure" in the opinion. It's at the very top of page 20. Here's the text of the opinion.
 
2014-09-04 05:57:07 PM  
You have to have read the previous headline in order to get this headline but even still, I'm liking it.

Plus one liter point, Subby.

/That's like 3/5s of a Total Faker vote.

qorkfiend: He actually wrote "Go figure" in his opinion? That's the best thing I've ever heard.


And THIS.

Seriously, I still got a big grin on my face after reading that.
 
2014-09-04 05:57:41 PM  

Serious Black: I particularly liked this section wrapping from page 21 to 22:

Married homosexuals are more likely to want to adopt than unmarried ones if only because of the many state and federal benefits to which married people are entitled. And so same-sex marriage improves the prospects of unintended children by increasing the number and resources of prospective adopters. Notably, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt foster children than opposite-sex couples are. Gates, "LGBT Parenting in the United States," supra, at 3. As of 2011, there were some 400,000 American children in foster care, of whom 10,800 were in Indiana and about 6500 in Wisconsin. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Children's Bureau, "How Many Children Are in Foster Care in the U.S.? In My State?" www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/faq/foster-care

Also, the more willing adopters there are, not only the fewer children there will be in foster care or being raised by single mothers but also the fewer abortions there will be. Carrying a baby to term and putting the baby up for adoption is an alternative to abortion for a pregnant woman who thinks that as a single mother she could not cope with the baby. The pro-life community recognizes this. See, e.g., Students for Life of America, "Adoption, Another Option," http://studentsforlife.org/res.../organize-an-event/adoption: "There may be times when a mother facing an unplanned pregnancy may feel completely unequipped to parent her child. She may feel her only option is to kill her pre-born child. Pro-life individuals touch lives by helping women place their baby or child for adoption. It is important to show women on your campus that adoption can be the answer to all of her fears."

So what's a bigger sin, Christians: a woman getting an abortion instead of giving up the kid for adoption, or letting a same-sex couple get married to provide the best possible outcome for their adopted kids?


Both weight about the same.
 
2014-09-04 05:57:58 PM  

quatchi: /That's like 3/5s of a Total Faker vote.


Farker, not faker. Yeesh. Although...
 
2014-09-04 05:59:19 PM  
So look what [Wisconsin] has done: it has thrown a crumb to same-sex couples, denying them not only many of the rights and many of the benefits of marriage but also of course the name. Imagine if in the 1960s the states that forbade interracial marriage had said to interracial couples: "you can have domestic partnerships that create the identical rights and obligations of marriage, but you can call them only 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' The term 'marriage' is reserved for same-race unions." This would give interracial couples much more than Wisconsin's domestic partnership statute gives same-sex couples. Yet withholding the term "marriage" would be considered deeply offensive, and, having no justification other than bigotry, would be invalidated as a denial of equal protection.

Anticipating the derp.
 
2014-09-04 05:59:53 PM  
Is this another setback or a repeat from the thread with the nearly identical headline.

Some sort of meta-joke that whizzed by me?
 
2014-09-04 06:02:23 PM  
 
2014-09-04 06:02:55 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Is this another setback or a repeat from the thread with the nearly identical headline.

Some sort of meta-joke that whizzed by me?


Read the headline again.
 
2014-09-04 06:03:46 PM  
"Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.
 
2014-09-04 06:06:52 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.


SkinnyHead being willfully ignorant again, what a shocker...
 
2014-09-04 06:07:08 PM  
What's going to happen when there is like 10+ court rulings all saying the same things and only like 1 against when it goes to the SCOTUS?

Yeah Scalia and Thomas will have no problem voting against all those other rulings but it would get pretty difficult for the others to do it and be taken seriously.
 
2014-09-04 06:07:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Interestingly, he finds homosexuals to be a suspect class for equal protection, something many other courts hesitated to do


This is why I love Sandra Day O'Connor. The liberals on the Court in Lawrence vs. Texas were cowards and chickened out in their decision. Her concurring decision was all about equal protection.
 
2014-09-04 06:08:23 PM  

SkinnyHead: The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.


No it didn't. They were saying not allowing gays to get married was a bad tradition, not marriage in general.
 
2014-09-04 06:08:43 PM  

Frozboz: Epic Fap Session: Is this another setback or a repeat from the thread with the nearly identical headline.

Some sort of meta-joke that whizzed by me?

Read the headline again.


d'oh
 
2014-09-04 06:09:48 PM  
"Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee

Had to look that one up.
 
2014-09-04 06:13:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.


Here's an ass made of straws:

40.media.tumblr.com

So you can now suck it.
 
2014-09-04 06:14:29 PM  
That decision came so fast, I think I have whiplash.

/Will WI and IN appeal?
//Film at 11
 
2014-09-04 06:14:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.


Skinnyhead, that is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've ever written. And that's saying something.
 
2014-09-04 06:16:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.


Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it.
 
2014-09-04 06:17:10 PM  
Jesus, can we just get enough of the bigoted states to shove this in front of the US supreme court and have same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states yet?
 
2014-09-04 06:17:56 PM  

codergirl42: SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.

SkinnyHead being willfully ignorant again, what a shocker...


I find it oddly comforting, myself.

In this crazy, mixed up world, in a time where everything changes so quickly, SH's continual, willfull ignorance (in this case that the court was referring to the tradition of DENYING marriage to gays not marriage itself) is like a touchstone of sameness like the sun setting and rising every day.
 
2014-09-04 06:18:02 PM  

Corvus: SkinnyHead: The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.

No it didn't. They were saying not allowing gays to get married was a bad tradition, not marriage in general.


Too bad, marriage ruins your life.  I know, I've done it twice.  Now I'm stuck with a nympho that likes to drink vodak and play video games and work out and be active.  The worst part is she insists that I cook great food.  The audacity of her.
 
2014-09-04 06:18:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad - such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,"

The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.  If it's such a silly old bad tradition, how can it be considered a fundamental right?  Go figure.


English comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

One of the standard anti-gay-marriage arguments is the classic "b b but tradition." Posner is simply pointing out that this argument falls flat on its face since we recognize many traditions as bearing no moral weight, or being repugnant.
 
2014-09-04 06:18:20 PM  

GWSuperfan: That decision came so fast, I think I have whiplash.

/Will WI and IN appeal?
//Film at 11


Article noted WI is already appealing to the supreme court and even bashed one of their own laws while submitting the appeal.
 
2014-09-04 06:19:08 PM  
But it's still banned here in Virginia.

State Motto: Always on the wrong side of history. Always.
 
2014-09-04 06:19:15 PM  

Bugerz: Jesus, can we just get enough of the bigoted states to shove this in front of the US supreme court and have same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states yet?


Almost certainly this year, but likely not until the very last day of the term, so probably June 29, 2015.
 
2014-09-04 06:21:30 PM  

Walker: But it's still banned here in Virginia.

State Motto: Always on the wrong side of history. Always.


Yea, but you guys are already appealing it to the supreme court to keep it. I await hearing the sudden explosion of heads up here in MN when it is legalized federally.
 
2014-09-04 06:21:59 PM  

Corvus: What's going to happen when there is like 10+ court rulings all saying the same things and only like 1 against when it goes to the SCOTUS?

Yeah Scalia and Thomas will have no problem voting against all those other rulings but it would get pretty difficult for the others to do it and be taken seriously.


I think the current appeals court count is 2-0 with several pending.  Most of those 10+ and the 1 are district court rulings.
 
2014-09-04 06:22:14 PM  

Bugerz: Jesus, can we just get enough of the bigoted states to shove this in front of the US supreme court and have same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states yet?


VA got a stay from SCOTUS to keep marriages from starting. That pretty much means SCOTUS has to take the case now.
 
2014-09-04 06:22:31 PM  
Apparently, Judge Feldman has an inability to recuse himself from cases involving oil companies in which he has a financial interest. He was also appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Roberts.

I think someone wanted a gay marriage ban decision and found a federal judge willing to make that decision.

I think it's called judge shopping but I'm not a lawyer.
 
2014-09-04 06:22:53 PM  

Walker: But it's still banned here in Virginia.

State Motto: Always on the wrong side of history. Always.


Well, that is certainly more correct and less ironic than "Virginia is for Lovers".

Hopefully, they come to their senses on that one soonish.

/Yes, Virginia there is a sanity clause.
//Sorry.
 
2014-09-04 06:23:36 PM  

vygramul: This is why I love Sandra Day O'Connor. The liberals on the Court in Lawrence vs. Texas were cowards and chickened out in their decision. Her concurring decision was all about equal protection.


I wouldn't hold her up as a paragon in this case, her position based on EPC was so that her joining the
Bowers v. Hardwick opinion wouldn't be overturned (O'Connor had a thing about being overturned).
 
2014-09-04 06:24:31 PM  
Wait, what?

*notices Total Fark giftage*

Sweet!

TY to Chris Ween. You rawk!

You do realize that now I'm gonna have to go off to TF and make fun of the filthy, filthy liters for an hour or so.

Tradition!
 
2014-09-04 06:25:25 PM  

Teiritzamna: vygramul: This is why I love Sandra Day O'Connor. The liberals on the Court in Lawrence vs. Texas were cowards and chickened out in their decision. Her concurring decision was all about equal protection.

I wouldn't hold her up as a paragon in this case, her position based on EPC was so that her joining the
Bowers v. Hardwick opinion wouldn't be overturned (O'Connor had a thing about being overturned).


She explains why she sided with the conservatives in Bowers v. Hardwick - she believes in the Court's tradition of narrow decisions (and why she commented that Citizens United was probably wrong) and Bowers didn't ALLOW for the EPC view.
 
2014-09-04 06:28:29 PM  

quatchi: Wait, what?

*notices Total Fark giftage*

Sweet!

TY to Chris Ween. You rawk!

You do realize that now I'm gonna have to go off to TF and make fun of the filthy, filthy liters for an hour or so.

Tradition!


Stop by the discussion area.  They love new people.  Don't look them in the eye.  They take it as a challenge and they are very territorial.
 
2014-09-04 06:28:44 PM  

Corvus: SkinnyHead: The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.

No it didn't. They were saying not allowing gays to get married was a bad tradition, not marriage in general.


The tradition of marriage is not about prohibiting anyone from getting married.  The tradition of marriage was created to allow a man and woman to unite in matrimony.  This court said that the traditional concept of marriage is silly and must be discarded in favor of a new definition of marriage, divorced from its historical tradition.
 
2014-09-04 06:29:09 PM  

12349876: Corvus: What's going to happen when there is like 10+ court rulings all saying the same things and only like 1 against when it goes to the SCOTUS?

Yeah Scalia and Thomas will have no problem voting against all those other rulings but it would get pretty difficult for the others to do it and be taken seriously.

I think the current appeals court count is 2-0 with several pending.  Most of those 10+ and the 1 are district court rulings.


Yeah I did a quick once over and it looks like you are about right.

Looks like 2-0 appeals
and about 15-1 state/circuit.

But still it's sort of hard when everyone is agreeing to go against the consensus. Sure Thomas and Scalia will have no problem but Kennedy and Roberts will.
 
2014-09-04 06:30:04 PM  

vygramul: She explains why she sided with the conservatives in Bowers v. Hardwick - she believes in the Court's tradition of narrow decisions (and why she commented that Citizens United was probably wrong) and Bowers didn't ALLOW for the EPC view.


Oh i know all that, i am saying that her resorting to the EPC and the rest of the court not joining her was less a factor of them "chickening out" and more of her being desperate to find a way to not have her prior position bounced for being terribly wrong.
 
2014-09-04 06:30:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: Corvus: SkinnyHead: The court calls marriage a "bad tradition" like cannibalism, foot-binding and burning to death, and also says that there is a fundamental right to get married.

No it didn't. They were saying not allowing gays to get married was a bad tradition, not marriage in general.

The tradition of marriage is not about prohibiting anyone from getting married.  The tradition of marriage was created to allow a man and woman of the same race to unite in matrimony.  This court said that the traditional concept of marriage is silly and must be discarded in favor of a new definition of marriage, divorced from its historical tradition.

 
2014-09-04 06:30:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: The tradition of marriage is not about prohibiting anyone from getting married.


Great then you and I both agree that the argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of tradition is bullshiat!
 
2014-09-04 06:30:46 PM  

Teiritzamna: Listening to the oral arguments was brutal and hilarious and sad and fun. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richar d_ posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html

full arguments:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.2.14-2526_08_26_2014 .m p3
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.1.14-2386_08_26_2014 .m p3


I love how the judge keeps calmly interrupting the dickhole that is all but shouting about gay marriage and destroying him left and right.
 
2014-09-04 06:32:03 PM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Theaetetus: Indiana's government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents - model citizens really - so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

[makeameme.org image 250x250]
I don't always like Posner, but when I do, I really like Posner.

He actually wrote "Go figure" in his opinion? That's the best thing I've ever heard.

Yes, he seriously wrote "Go figure" in the opinion. It's at the very top of page 20. Here's the text of the opinion.


LOL.
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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






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