(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   All you need to know about the seven cases the Supreme Court has on its menu for gay-marriage day

30 Nov 2012 10:41 AM   |   10829 clicks   |   Mother Jones
Showing 1-50 of 325 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Free Radical     
Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp

30 Nov 2012 10:43 AM
Serious Black     
My guess is SCOTUS will take up DOMA since it's ludicrous to have a federal law be unenforceable in parts of the country but enforceable in others. My guess is also the conservatives are hoping they'll take up California's case so they can declare the states don't have the power to legalize marriage equality.

30 Nov 2012 10:45 AM
BigBooper     
Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

30 Nov 2012 10:46 AM
Real Women Drink Akvavit    [TotalFark]  
Imma gonna gay marry a pygmy goat. We want a new blender for our wedding gift, thanks.

/hurr de durrr
//gonna go Freep diving in a minute, because, bwahahahaha!

30 Nov 2012 10:46 AM
PonceAlyosha     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.

30 Nov 2012 10:47 AM
BigBooper     

Free Radical: Please rule in favor of so that I can marry my dog!

/derp


I thought it was marriage to turtles that we wanted to legalize. Cause you know they go all the way down.

30 Nov 2012 10:47 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

BigBooper: Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.


It's sad to see a full-grown man drolling on his own bib like that.

30 Nov 2012 10:48 AM
steamingpile     
What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

30 Nov 2012 10:48 AM
MadHatter500     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Yeah, all that freedom. Sucks being an authoritarian at the federal level. Even if they can't find it in the single digit amendments there's always that damn 10th one.

30 Nov 2012 10:49 AM
DubtodaIll     
The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.

30 Nov 2012 10:50 AM
Source4leko     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.

30 Nov 2012 10:51 AM
Citrate1007     

Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...

30 Nov 2012 10:52 AM
BigBooper     

PonceAlyosha: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.


It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

30 Nov 2012 10:52 AM
ExcaliburPrime111     
Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.

30 Nov 2012 10:52 AM
Serious Black     

steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.


I think she'll be floored when Clarence Thomas votes to strike down DOMA.

30 Nov 2012 10:52 AM
dwrash     
They need to just remove stuatory marriage laws and make marriage contractual law. Remove all legal spousal benefits and remove the ability to file jointly (its silly that we ever allowed this in the first place). Then set up a frame work were by law people can enter into a defined contract with another individual cafeteria style. (medical benefits, estate issues, etc).

After going through a divorce which included child and spousal support, I hate the idea of getting into a marriage that eventually falls apart being left up to the courts to decide in the end. EVERYTHING should be spelled out up front and nothing should be left to the courts unless its a breach of contract issue.

30 Nov 2012 10:53 AM
Dr Dreidel     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Well, they never included language that prohibits either of those, so...yes?

// though they DID make sure to tell us that everyone should have a speedy and fair trial, and we saw how that worked out...

30 Nov 2012 10:53 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.


Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public

30 Nov 2012 10:53 AM
Funk Brothers     
DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.

30 Nov 2012 10:54 AM
Singleballtheory     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
ToastTheRabbit     

Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.


THIS

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
Luminaro     
Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
stpauler    [TotalFark]  

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


Civil rights=non-issue. Thanks for your retarded contribution.

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
Real Women Drink Akvavit    [TotalFark]  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Dude. I keep hearing that "marriage is a religious ritual, with federal benefits" but some douchebags never consider their religion isn't the only one. I'm a Nordic Heathen. Gay marriage is totally cool with me. If you swear an oath to one another, you are bound to it, period. That's why it's called an "oath". So if the Christians or Conservatives or whoever is peering in your windows that day while being obsessed with your sex life want tax benefits for "marriage", hand 'em over here, too. The oath has been sworn and they're married now. Turnabout is totally fair play. More importantly, I think the "no separate classes" part of the fourteenth amendment already has this covered. If I can figure that out - and I'm a chef, not a lawyer, for pity's sake! - you'd think other people could as well.

/straight chick with gay friends
//this is relevant to my interests 
///figures you were probably trollin', so plus one for you

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
qorkfiend     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Clearly the writers of the Constitution intended all citizens to have equal protection under the law. Sorry.

30 Nov 2012 10:55 AM
angrymacface     

BigBooper: It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.


All those bacon and shellfish eaters make me sick. And don't get me started on those sick freaks who cotton-polyester blends.

30 Nov 2012 10:56 AM
Britney Spear's Speculum     
They'll hear one of the DOMA cases but not prop 8. But they'll suspend upholdoing the current ruling on prop 8 until DOMA is heard.


This shiat is annoying

30 Nov 2012 10:56 AM
mbillips     

steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.


Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.

/Get answer from back of the book, work backwards to show your "research." It's the Scalia way.

30 Nov 2012 10:56 AM
Notabunny    [TotalFark]  

DubtodaIll: The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


I understand your frustration. But there are real people who are really suffering because of state-sanctioned discrimination. While I'm not happy that this court, with its right-wing activist judges, could make important civil rights decisions, these decisions need to be made at the federal level.

30 Nov 2012 10:56 AM
DubtodaIll     

Dwight_Yeast: DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.

Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public


i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together. Also, no shame.

30 Nov 2012 10:58 AM
lennavan     
covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.

30 Nov 2012 10:58 AM
Zion21     

Singleballtheory: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

rewardslink.infoView Full Size


I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

And don't even get me started on those uppity blacks...


Oh no you didn't!

30 Nov 2012 10:58 AM
DammitIForgotMyLogin    [TotalFark]  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


The authors of the constitution intended for black people worth less than white people, slavery to be acceptable, and women too stupid to be allowed to vote, so let's not pretend their views should be set in stone and revered after 200 odd years of progress.

30 Nov 2012 10:59 AM
INeedAName     

Citrate1007: Source4leko: BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.

The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...


I understand the sentiment, and I don't begrudge you for feeling that way. But please know that many of us in churches all across the country are fighting against our governing bodies (who tend to be older and significantly more conservative than the actual churches) to support gay marriage. Change is happening.

30 Nov 2012 10:59 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.


The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.

30 Nov 2012 10:59 AM
miscreant     

Luminaro: Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!


That's not sweat my friend.

30 Nov 2012 10:59 AM
Notabunny    [TotalFark]  

lennavan: covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery

How is this an issue? If you risk your life fighting to defend the country, you should be buried wherever and however the fark you want to be buried and bill the taxpayers.

Goddamn some people are assholes.


I thought they fought and died protecting my right to hate and discriminate

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
THX 1138     

DubtodaIll: I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.


B-b-b-but Religious Freedom!!!!!!

(that being the freedom to impose one's religious rules on non-followers)

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
Serious Black     

ExcaliburPrime111: Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS is in a tough spot here. On the one hand, at least on paper, they probably have a 5-4 majority to overturn the lower Federal Court decisions, which have been in favor of "marriage equality." Refusing to take on those cases leaves the lower court decisions as they are, which would be a victory for pro-gay marriage people.

Taking the cases on, however, runs the risk that if a Justice switches sides, then the Supreme Court's decision endorsing gay marriage (or the specific aspects addressed by those cases anyway) would apply to the whole nation.

/I think a decision on these cases will be delayed while Justices get a better idea of how their colleagues might rule.
//Getting the popcorn ready.


They might have it on Perry v. Brown, but you really think that Kennedy will allow DOMA to stand after authoring Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Hell, I think if they grant cert to a DOMA case, it'll go down 7-2 with Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas voting to strike it.

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
ThrobblefootSpectre     

DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations


Agreed on the tax incentive for a two parent household. But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
King Something     
I wouldn't be too surprised if the conservative Justices decided to hear these cases just to make sure that same-sex couples don't get civil rights rights until June. (If they choose not to hear the cases, same-sex couples will get some civil rights immediately, at least in jurisdictions affected by these cases)

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
lennavan     

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


So I'll admit, I saw this post and evaluated it as far too obvious. But with the sheer volume of replies that I never saw coming, I am forced to revisit my initial assessment. I was wrong, you were dead on.

11/10, bravo. You taught me something today.

30 Nov 2012 11:00 AM
Notabunny    [TotalFark]  

miscreant: Luminaro: Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!

That's not sweat my friend.


img.photobucket.comView Full Size

30 Nov 2012 11:02 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

DubtodaIll: i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together.


This is not about "working together"; it's about sharing a life and all the attendant rights. If there were a workable contract law solution to this problem, we would have found it years ago. The closest gay people have come is being able to adopt their partner, but that's A) weird and B) only works in certain states and countries.

DOMA and the state laws are fundamentally discriminatory. This is an equal protection issues, and doesn't affect what any religious group thinks or wants to do.

30 Nov 2012 11:03 AM
Funk Brothers     

Dwight_Yeast: Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.

The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.


If Perry v. Brown is not heard, then the lower court's ruling on the case stands which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. This would mean that gay marriage in California becomes legal in a very short time frame after the Supreme Court formally announces that they will not hear Perry v. Brown.

30 Nov 2012 11:04 AM
Bit'O'Gristle     
Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.

30 Nov 2012 11:05 AM
Dwight_Yeast     

ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.


Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

mbillips: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.


They do vote based on personal belief, and the current Court is weighted towards people who believe in personal liberties, which is why more or less this same court finally and definitively overturned any and all sodomy laws.

30 Nov 2012 11:07 AM
mbillips     

Dwight_Yeast: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.


Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me. As long as we make the building codes strong enough to protect from earthquakes and floods, I don't see a problem.

/Genesis 18-19 are WEIRD stories.

30 Nov 2012 11:08 AM
Happy Hours     
I'm pretty sure gay marriage is covered by the interstate commerce clause.......derpaderpadoo!

30 Nov 2012 11:09 AM
Showing 1-50 of 325 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined