Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex MarriageFollow

#52 Mar 27 2013 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts

Also, would it be wondrous or regretful if gbaji no longer had resort to gross entanglement of logical thought to argue against ssm on the internets?


He'll have been all for it in two years. Not only he is so smart that IQ tests can't measure his ability, he also has the ability to change the past. Surely you've noticed?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Mar 27 2013 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
When a member of a gay couple accidentally gets impregnated by the other and the government has to get involved to force the other to take responsibility for the child, I'll be the first in line to demand that we apply marriage status to gay couples


When that happens it's usually called "Child Support" not "Marriage". Marriage is what happens when folks agree to spend their lives together. I really think that this whole children + marriage thing is completely blown out of proportion. You don't need marriage to make babies, and believe me, humans are making babies. There's not going to be a shortage of babies.

I've heard a lot of talk on the conservative shows lately about this and I just don't understand some things. Perhaps Gbaji can clarify.

1. The issue only affects .2% of the population or whatever so why do we care?
2. The cost of making these benefits retroactive or some sh*t would be catastrophic (because of 2% of the population)
3. Instead of doing the fiscally responsible thing and continuing to use the word "marriage" they would prefer to use the word "civil union" and add the expense of all new documents and contracts. But it would be too costly to allow them marriage to begin with so... What? It's ok to spend money on Civil Union just to not use the word marriage?

It's just some of the dumbest sh*t I have ever heard. And I can't stop listening!
#54 Mar 27 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts

It's just some of the dumbest sh*t I have ever heard. And I can't stop listening!


It's all code for "normalizing being gay will turn my kids gay, and I hate gay people".

Really that simple.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Mar 27 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
******
43,142 posts
Gay people raise gay kids, just like straight people raise straight kids. That's how it works.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Mar 27 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Gay people raise gay kids, just like straight people raise straight kids. That's how it works.


And gay kids NEVER come from straight people! Smiley: nod
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#57 Mar 27 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
You know how square straight people are right?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#58 Mar 27 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,415 posts
Torrence wrote:
It's just some of the dumbest sh*t I have ever heard. And I can't stop listening!

That's how they get you. You have to have be in the right mindset for that kind of stuff to make sense, a good amount of anxiety and paranoia help. Just give yourself a few more weeks of drinking the punch and you'll be one of them! Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Mar 27 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,415 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
You know how square straight people are right?

Is one of those geometry proofs?

I was told there'd be no math today. Smiley: glare
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Mar 27 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,522 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
You know how square straight people are right?

It's hip to be square.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#61 Mar 27 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Square people have all the right angles
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Mar 27 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
43,142 posts
I'm a sexy rhombus.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Mar 27 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,522 posts
You're so obtuse


Edited, Mar 27th 2013 7:32pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#64 Mar 27 2013 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Nebraska Law wrote:
It is Illegal to go whale fishing.

Those poor whalers. What will they do if they cannot fish for whales in Nebraska...


Exactly. People complaining that gay couples cannot gain marriage benefits is just like people complaining that whalers are not allowed to hunt whales in Nebraska. Excellent analogy!


Oh Gbaji, you are so predictable it hurts. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#65 Mar 27 2013 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,415 posts
Elinda wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
You know how square straight people are right?

It's hip to be square.

Because it's relevant again...

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#66 Mar 27 2013 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,692 posts
"In '87, Huey released this, Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip to Be Square," a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself!"
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#67 Mar 27 2013 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Popular wisdom after today's arguments seems to be that DOMA will be struck down.

But who knows. Maybe Roberts will switch sides and save it under a taxation argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 27 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,142 posts
Clearly it was being oversampled.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Mar 27 2013 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Popular wisdom after today's arguments seems to be that DOMA will be struck down.

But who knows. Maybe Roberts will switch sides and save it under a taxation argument.


But... if Roberts 'switched sides' wouldn't he be _against_ DOMA?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#70 Mar 28 2013 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,522 posts
Some quotes from the DOMA arguments......
Alito wrote:
"Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that's at issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage, or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?"
This, to me, is one of the more interesting things to come up for discussion. It leads one to question if there is real justification to give a married couple 'special' treatment under the federal law. Of course if the purpose of the estate tax provision is the latter as stated by Alito, then clearly denying that estate tax clause to same-sex couples would be highly discriminatory. I will call this the gbaji Effect.

Ginsberg wrote:
You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage."
Skim-milk marriage will be the catch-phrase of the week. Ginsberg was responding to Kennedy's question of whether DOMA is in conflict with the States power to regulate marriage, divorce and custody. A man-woman marriage would be considered a hole-milk marriage I suppose. But are either pasteurized?

I think this is my favorite quote. How bold of Kagan to point out the big ol' elephant in the room.
Kagan wrote:
So we have a whole series of cases which suggest the following: Which suggest that when Congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases with some — even if they're not suspect — with some rigor to say, do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress' judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus and so forth?

Roberts tried to devalue the whole issue by attempting to pass it off as a political movement pressing for special rights for an identified group.
Roberts wrote:
"You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same-sex marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?"
Quote:
"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."
(responding to the lawyer for Edith Windsor - the woman who was hit with estate taxes after the death of her same-sex spouse).
And this guy is our Chief Justice..Smiley: oyvey

I think Joph's prediction about DOMA being struck down still appears to be the direction things are going.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#71 Mar 28 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,142 posts
Elinda wrote:
A man-woman marriage would be considered a hole-milk marriage I suppose.
Made from 100% Jackass cows.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Mar 28 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,522 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
A man-woman marriage would be considered a hole-milk marriage I suppose.
Made from 100% Jackass cows.

Lol, I actually 'previewed' that post before posting. You would find my one typo.

Holy-Gaxeman!

Edited, Mar 28th 2013 3:26pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#73 Mar 28 2013 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kennedy seemed very skeptical about the ability of Congress to regulate for the states what counts or doesn't count as marriage. He, in fact, indicated that he thought the states' ability to determine marriage was one of the premiere examples of state powers. I think DOMA will be struck down with a mixed majority: some ruling it on equal protection grounds, others on the inability of Congress to make that call.

The most realistic optimistic result for California Prop 8 seems to be it ruled invalid on a quasi-technicality (the same finding the state supreme court had) which would restore same sex marriage in CA without directly imposing it on the other 49 states.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Mar 28 2013 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,074 posts
I agree, that combination seems to be the most likely.

DOMA declare unconstitutional because the federal government leaves the power of issuing marriage status to the states.

Prop 8 case thrown out on the merits, since the state of CA declined to prosecute and it was private citizens who opted to. This would effectively permit marriage in CA again (since the state court called it unconstitutional and the supreme court believes the feds can't determine that, agreeing with the DOMA decision) but also set a new precedent for the court - the Supreme Court will reserve the right to refuse cases in which the state declines to defend a law on appeal.

This won't make anyone happy except LGBT folks in CA and states where marriage is permitted, who can now get married AND get federal benefits for their spouses. States where it is illegal will remain illegal for now.

Or, Roberts and Kennedy could say @#%^ it and agree with the CA lower courts that it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, and end up on the right side of history. After the Obamacare ruling, I'm not willing to discount Roberts going rogue again.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#75 Mar 28 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
catwho wrote:
I agree, that combination seems to be the most likely.

DOMA declare unconstitutional because the federal government leaves the power of issuing marriage status to the states.

Prop 8 case thrown out on the merits, since the state of CA declined to prosecute and it was private citizens who opted to. This would effectively permit marriage in CA again (since the state court called it unconstitutional and the supreme court believes the feds can't determine that, agreeing with the DOMA decision) but also set a new precedent for the court - the Supreme Court will reserve the right to refuse cases in which the state declines to defend a law on appeal.

This won't make anyone happy except LGBT folks in CA and states where marriage is permitted, who can now get married AND get federal benefits for their spouses. States where it is illegal will remain illegal for now.


Which is absolutely fine. I think that all we are hoping to come out of this is exactly what you just described - the Supreme Court basically not making a federal decision against (even if we'd rather they were for). The states are starting to come around, and if we can convince the justices it's not worth it to manage at the federal level, that will be a huge win. I live in PA where it's not legal, but it's only a short hop over the bridge to either one of two more progressive states. If it means better protection for my partner, I'll make the move.

And this way If the true blue ones want to live in a little bubble where there is no such thing as equal rights and protections under the law for everyone, so be it.


#76 Mar 28 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts
Which is absolutely fine. I think that all we are hoping to come out of this is exactly what you just described - the Supreme Court basically not making a federal decision against (even if we'd rather they were for).

No, I think many people are hoping for a 50 state affirmation that same sex marriage is identical to opposite sex marriage which is well within the power of the court. See Loving v Virginia.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#77 Mar 28 2013 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Which is absolutely fine. I think that all we are hoping to come out of this is exactly what you just described - the Supreme Court basically not making a federal decision against (even if we'd rather they were for).

No, I think many people are hoping for a 50 state affirmation that same sex marriage is identical to opposite sex marriage which is well within the power of the court. See Loving v Virginia.



I meant realistically. Sure it would be nice for them to affirm it (hence the "we'd rather they were for"), but there's still far too much divide for us to seriously think that this set of justices are going to make that kind of decision.
#78 Mar 28 2013 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts
I meant realistically. Sure it would be nice for them to affirm it (hence the "we'd rather they were for"), but there's still far too much divide for us to seriously think that this set of justices are going to make that kind of decision.

No, not really. I think there's a fairly good (say 35%) chance it'll go that way. From the court's point of view, do they really want to revisit this in 10 years as public opinion continues to shift and 2 or 3 states hold out with laws that are progressively more out of step with the national view of human/civil rights? I think Scalia and Thomas aren't persuadable, I wouldn't really take any of the other conservative justices out of the equation. Alito's going to be there a long time and if there's one thing SCOTUS justices aren't super fond of it's having to say "well, maybe we were wrong about...."
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#79 Mar 28 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
No, not really. I think there's a fairly good (say 35%) chance it'll go that way.

I find it hard to believe the chances are that high. But I'm in the enviable position of being able to be smug if I'm correct and happy if I'm wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Mar 28 2013 at 10:40 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts

I find it hard to believe the chances are that high. But I'm in the enviable position of being able to be smug if I'm correct and happy if I'm wrong.


It's true, the likelyhood of a Dred Scott style ruling is minimal, there's no real "bad" outcome for supporters of same sex marriage, although having to waste more time and money dragging Utah into the 1980s would be annoying.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#81 Mar 28 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,142 posts
I'm still waiting for Utah to introduce black people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#82 Mar 28 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,074 posts
Yeah I'll agree with one out of three odds that Roberts and Kennedy, or at least Kennedy, write a decision that makes gay marriage legal in all fifty states.

2/3s chance of them sticking with the "lets the states decide for now..." plan.

There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#83 Mar 28 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,157 posts
There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.

The conflicts with the meme of Uncle Thomas being BY FAR the most reliably anti-human rights justice on the court. Oh wait, that's his record. Thomas is probably in favor of repealing the 13th amendment.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Mar 28 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
642 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.

The conflicts with the meme of Uncle Thomas being BY FAR the most reliably anti-human rights justice on the court. Oh wait, that's his record. Thomas is probably in favor of repealing the 13th amendment.


Of course he would be. That's clearly a state's rights issue that far oversteps what the Founders had considered to be appropriate federal power and has no place in the Constitution. Of course, getting that repealed might be a little bit harder than the 18th was to repeal...

The descriptions of late of Scalia as the Internet troll of the Court have been amusing, but, to me, Thomas is the one justice I want to see off the court more than anyone. Aside from his political views, the work of his wife that's often in clear conflict with business of the court bothers the hell out of me. Replacing him with another person of color who isn't a complete douchebag would be great.
____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#85 Mar 28 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,074 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.

The conflicts with the meme of Uncle Thomas being BY FAR the most reliably anti-human rights justice on the court. Oh wait, that's his record. Thomas is probably in favor of repealing the 13th amendment.


I don't think Thomas will be the deciding vote on this by a long shot - in fact, I don't think he'd agree with the majority even if all 8 other justices including Scalia went ahead and said "Gay marriage! @#%^ yeah!"

Just noting the irony of when he does come down on the wrong side of history, since his wife is a white blonde.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#86 Mar 28 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.

The conflicts with the meme of Uncle Thomas being BY FAR the most reliably anti-human rights justice on the court. Oh wait, that's his record. Thomas is probably in favor of repealing the 13th amendment.


My impression is that if he could be a slave owner this time around he'd be fine with it, and see no problem with it. He is not a great thinker, or if he is he hides it very well.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#87 Mar 28 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rush Limbaugh agrees with me!
CNN wrote:
(CNN) - Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage must accept that they’ve “lost the issue,” radio host Rush Limbaugh argued Thursday.

“This issue is lost,” the conservative firebrand said. “I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable - and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Granted, I don't agree with the "why" but the fact that this is going to happen just now seems to be sinking in with some people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Mar 28 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rush Limbaugh agrees with me!
CNN wrote:
(CNN) - Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage must accept that they’ve “lost the issue,” radio host Rush Limbaugh argued Thursday.

“This issue is lost,” the conservative firebrand said. “I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable - and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Granted, I don't agree with the "why" but the fact that this is going to happen just now seems to be sinking in with some people.


I figured the "we lost the language on this" was his way of admitting the whole State vs Federal fight in a way that makes it sound as if the anti-DOMA folks were just evil and conniving.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#89 Mar 29 2013 at 2:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,874 posts
Quote:
But are either pasteurized?


I'd assume so. Someone has to do the blessing.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#90 Mar 29 2013 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,074 posts
Limbaugh is agreeing with Bill O' Reilly in this case - Bill O said that the anti-DOMA people presented a sound argument that was logical and based on the Constitution, and that all the pro-DOMA people could do was "thump the Bible."

Bill O is now being attacked by the social righties. It's a sight to behold.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#91 Mar 29 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,133 posts
I haven't seen any of these "attacks" - of course I stay far away from wingnut websites. Since Portman and a few others have made the "Oh, it's a personal issue now, my kid or other family member is affected so NOW I can see the other side's argument" leap, I would think the holdouts on the right would be in a target rich environment right now.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#92 Mar 29 2013 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Don't retreat, reload.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#93 Mar 29 2013 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho wrote:
Limbaugh is agreeing with Bill O' Reilly in this case - Bill O said that the anti-DOMA people presented a sound argument that was logical and based on the Constitution, and that all the pro-DOMA people could do was "thump the Bible."

That's not agreeing with O'Reilly. O'Reilly is saying DOMA should be knocked down because it's not constitutional (he's said he's neutral on SSM itself). Limbaugh is against SSM but says they're going to lose the fight because of liberal trickery and brainwashing and language play, not due to the merits of the arguments. Here's more context on the remarks:
Quote:
Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage must accept that they’ve “lost the issue,” radio host Rush Limbaugh argued Thursday.

“This issue is lost,” the conservative firebrand said. “I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable - and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this. “

Limbaugh went on to assert conservatives “lost the issue when we started allowing the word ‘marriage’ to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it.”

“Marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination,” he continued. “It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything. ‘Marriage’ is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way. “


Edited, Mar 29th 2013 7:36am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Mar 29 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
******
43,142 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I figured the "we lost the language on this" was his way of admitting the whole State vs Federal fight in a way that makes it sound as if the anti-DOMA folks were just evil and conniving.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Mar 29 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Belkira wrote:
There's no need to apply the state created status to this though. What I'd really like to see is a separation of marriage contracts from the state benefits applied to opposite sex couples who enter into one. The former is something which anyone ought to be able to enter into. The latter only makes sense if the marriage exists between a man and woman.


So you basically want to completely change the current structure of marital unions in order to justify keeping same-sex couples from calling themselves married in the eyes of the government.[/quote]

It wouldn't completely change the structure of marital unions. It wouldn't actually change them at all. It would actually be a relatively minor administrative detail at best. Right now, when you get married, there's a set of criteria to qualify for the license. The law includes a contract that you are assumed to enter into if you sign the license, have it witnessed, filed, etc. All I'm saying is that we move that contract from something you have applied *if* you sign/file the license, to having it be one of the requirements *for* signing/filing the license.

Functionally, there's no difference. You're signing a piece of paper either way. However, conceptually, what this does is make the marriage contract a requirement (potentially one of many) for the state status (and whatever benefits are attached) instead of a consequence of that state status. By doing this you can now allow anyone to enter into the exact same marriage contract. This contract is recognized as a legitimate marriage contract by the state, and other things can be attached to it as desired. Which means that benefits we might want to apply to those in a marriage contract who have the potential to procreate can be hinged on that potential to procreate, while benefits we think should apply to any couple with that contract can apply to anyone. Adoption processes can act on the contract and not the other associated benefits when interacting with the couple. Hospitals can do so as well in terms of who gets to visit, make health decisions, etc.

Basically, this solves all the "problems" gay couples say they want solved and allow them (and anyone) to choose to marry as they wish, while still retaining the purpose of the set of state incentives for marriage as it relates to procreation. Everyone wins.

Quote:
Wow.


Yes. Wow. A relatively simple, nearly cosmetic change to our laws could solve the whole damn problem. Isn't that amazing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Mar 29 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Is Gbaji still arguing that government benefits granted to married couples exist solely for the promotion of procreation and child rearing?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#97 Mar 29 2013 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Is Gbaji still arguing that government benefits granted to married couples exist solely for the promotion of procreation and child rearing?


gbaji wrote:
Which means that benefits we might want to apply to those in a marriage contract who have the potential to procreate can be hinged on that potential to procreate

Yep.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#98gbaji, Posted: Mar 29 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not about the word "marriage". We have free speech in this country. Anyone can call themselves married, wear a ring, have a ceremony, etc. It's about a state created status which confers a set of benefits. It's about social security, pensions, pre-tax health insurance, military survivor benefits, and a handful of tax effects. It's about why those things exist, and how if you apply them to people who can't produce children, the "why" ceases to have meaning.
#99gbaji, Posted: Mar 29 2013 at 2:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. Why would you expect my argument to change? If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?
#100 Mar 29 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Why would you expect my argument to change? If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?


Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#101 Mar 29 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,415 posts
gbaji wrote:
If not that, then why do you think those benefits exist?

Kind of an economic partnership of sorts?


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 89 All times are in CDT