Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same *** MarriageFollow

#52 Mar 27 2013 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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 *** 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 *** 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 **** 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 **** I have ever heard. And I can't stop listening!
#54 Mar 27 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 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 *** will turn my kids ***, and I hate *** 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
49,740 posts
*** people raise *** 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
*****
12,049 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
*** people raise *** kids, just like straight people raise straight kids. That's how it works.


And *** 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
*****
15,952 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
*****
13,369 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
*****
13,369 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
*****
16,594 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
You know how square straight people are right?

It's hip to be square.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#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
******
49,740 posts
I'm a **** 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
*****
16,594 posts
You're so obtuse


Edited, Mar 27th 2013 7:32pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#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 *** 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
*****
13,369 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
******
27,272 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
******
49,740 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!
*****
16,883 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
*****
16,594 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-*** 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-*** 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-*** 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:
I lost my post
#71 Mar 28 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#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 *** 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
******
21,262 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: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#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
******
30,084 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 *** marriage is identical to opposite *** 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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (80)