Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same *** MarriageFollow

#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 *** marriage is identical to opposite *** 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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.

#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
******
30,084 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 *** 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 *****. 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.

#81 Mar 28 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 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
******
21,262 posts
Yeah I'll agree with one out of three odds that Roberts and Kennedy, or at least Kennedy, write a decision that makes *** 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: 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
#83 Mar 28 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 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 *****. 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.

#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 **** 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
******
21,262 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 "*** 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: 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
#86 Mar 28 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 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-*** 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!
*****
16,885 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rush Limbaugh agrees with me!
CNN wrote:
(CNN) - Conservatives who oppose same-*** 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
*****
13,228 posts
Quote:
But are either pasteurized?


I'd assume so. Someone has to do the blessing.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#90 Mar 29 2013 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 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: 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
#91 Mar 29 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 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
*****
14,174 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-*** 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
******
49,745 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
******
34,933 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 *** 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-*** 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" *** 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 **** problem. Isn't that amazing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Mar 29 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 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
*****
12,049 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
******
21,720 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
*****
13,369 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: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)