Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • "Florida" tag beats "Follow Up" tag.
  • i1079.photobucket.comView Full Size
     
    "Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."
  • Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

    Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!
  • Guess he wasn't man enough for a full-size donkey.
  • He's an asswipe-and damn proud of it.
  • Miniature donkey pick up lines...
     
    "Can I give you a lift?."
     
    "I'm hung, like a tiny donkey."
     
    "I want you to bear my teeny centaurs."
     
    "We're a match made in heaven.  You're name is Doodle, and I'm a dude who'll do ANYTHING!"
  • Came for Clerks 2 references. Leaving disappointed this time.

    \is the dude's name Kelly?
  • Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.
  • This is bad news... for Obama.
  • I defy any of you to resist this cute face!

    i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size
  • Why oh why did this thread have to happen while I was away from my office computer?!

    I'd show you a few pictures of little asses!!
  • Here is a picture of the victim:
    www.mrouse.comView Full Size
  • "Romero was taken into custody at the Ocala farm where he was employed after reportedly admitting to police that he becomes aroused when seeing animals in heat and mating."

    In fact--he's thinking about it RIGHT NOW

    i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size
  • The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
    The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.


    If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

    Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.
  • He'll have plenty of time to mule it over
  • Snarfangel: Here is a picture of the victim:
    [www.mrouse.com image 634x591]



    Cock a Doodle DON'T.
  • Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
    The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

    If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

    Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.


    He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.
  • PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
    "Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


    +1
  • So that's how they make Guy's Donkey Sauce...
  • BravadoGT: Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
    The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

    If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

    Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

    He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


    You've realized you've just proved the anti gay marriage people right about the slippery slope.
  • BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


    "Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

    Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

    Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

    Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.
  • BarkingUnicorn: Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way.


    I think you're conflating two different issues. Animal abuse and sexual gratification from violence towards animals aren't the same thing.

    But it doesn't matter, because psychologists can't agree on abnormal behavior, anyway. This case won't go anywhere, but in 20 years someone is going to make progress.
  • Load 25 of 63 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.