·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex Marriage
SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex MarriageFollow
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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 **** 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!
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 *****. 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.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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.
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!
You know how square straight people are right?
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!
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
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.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Aripyanfar wrote:
You know how square straight people are right?
It's hip to be square.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Square people have all the right angles
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
You're so obtuse
Edited, Mar 27th 2013 7:32pm by Elinda
Edited, Mar 27th 2013 7:32pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
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.
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
"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!"
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 who knows. Maybe Roberts will switch sides and save it under a taxation argument.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
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 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.
Some quotes from the DOMA arguments......
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.
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.
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.
(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..
I think Joph's prediction about DOMA being struck down still appears to be the direction things are going.
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?"
Ginsberg wrote:
You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage."
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."
And this guy is our Chief Justice..
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
Elinda wrote:
A man-woman marriage would be considered a hole-milk marriage I suppose.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
A man-woman marriage would be considered a hole-milk marriage I suppose.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 *****. 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.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 373
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (373)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC