Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, almost 2 years ago

    That’s a sick and completely incongruous comparison.

  2. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 2 years ago

    row made abortion safe and legal in most states. to bad it wasn’t decided on civil rights of the mother and privacy grounds.

  3. wbr

    wbr said, almost 2 years ago

    yup now i have to pay taxes for abortions next i will have to pay taxes to support gay marriages the 1st case bho decide not to enforce doma was a case involving inheritance tax on the estate of a donor

  4. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, almost 2 years ago

    I’ve got no problem with that.

  5. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, almost 2 years ago

    @wbr

    How do you pay taxes for gay marriage? If you were told that for every abortion you paid for, you wouldn’t have to pay for the incarceration of a criminal in the future or welfare to take of the kid, you come out ahead, don’t you?
    As for the inheritance tax, she has as much right to pay as little in taxes as you do. She also has the right to her day in court.

  6. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    You mean, free it from the grip of the Christian Taliban? Yes, yes indeed.

  7. Bandusia15

    Bandusia15 said, almost 2 years ago

    @wbr

    Oh you poor sad soul.

  8. Bandusia15

    Bandusia15 said, almost 2 years ago

    @Orthodox Catholic

    You are one sick puppy.

  9. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @onguard

    Onguard is being disingenuous when he says marriage isn’t a right. He didn’t know that we actually live under many Supreme Court decisions on the Constitution, not his own interpretation. I presented this list to him before, but as predicted, he chooses to believe the evidence doesn’t exist.

    Here’s where the Supreme Court found it, Onguard (even though you’ll keep denying it):

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  10. Refresh Comments.