Advertisement
Advertisement

Tom Toles for August 06, 2010

  1. Missing large
    rottenprat  about 11 years ago

    I see a world where a divorce form is printed on the back of marriage certificates … and a part of me wants to invest in the company printing the forms.

     •  Reply
  2. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    Toles Friday rant is here:

    http://tinyurl.com/279uhbu

     •  Reply
  3. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 11 years ago

    rottenprat, the history of marriage is long and uneven. For the record, divorces are lower today than they were 30 years ago. Part of that is because people are waiting to marry till they are older. But divorce has always happened - the big difference in the last century or so is that women can actually do it, too. Remembering that in Europe weddings did not even exist for the lower classes for many centuries, there really isn’t a single model for it.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    Odon  about 11 years ago

    The integrity of any marriage is solely dependent on the couple who has committed themselves to each other.

    Legal rights are just that, religious rites vary. As an American you can choose your religion, if any, but your individual rights should not be altered by the myopic.

     •  Reply
  5. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  about 11 years ago

    Here’s how I think a lot of the folks going bonkers over this ruling see themselves…

    We take you now to the Pearly Gates:

    Saint Peter: “Well according to our records sir, you were a heartless, greedy monster, who cheated on his wife, neglected his children, lied like a rug, and cheated everyone from here to downtown Peoria. What in world makes you think tht YOU’RE entititled to enter heaven?”

    Rightwinger: “I was militantly opposed to gay marriage!”

    Saint Peter: “WHAT?! Oh I’m sorry sir. there’s been a dreadful mistake; you go right to the head of the line, and wait over there. Your limo will be here shortly. Uh, excuse me a second? Gabe…break out the red carpet, we got another anti-gay-marriage guy! There we are sir, just make yourself comfortable. Is there anything I can get you while you wait? Champagen? Caviar?

    Oh, and have you got a few minutes? Jesus would really like to have His picture taken with you. ”

     •  Reply
  6. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    4 out of 5 Baptist divorcees believe that same-sex marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.

    The haters on the right are livid that this Republican-appointed judge is gay. They claim he is biased. Somehow, according to their twisted, abysmal lack of logic, a straight person would be “less biased.” It wasn’t a problem for them for a judge with oil assets to decide on the oil moratorium… but since this ruling didn’t work in their favor, they’re upset. They ignore the fact that they have absolutely NO BASIS in FACT, LOGIC, or REASON for this law, and instead legislate religious oppression.

    They preach about the Constitution and how this is so wrong. Well guess what, the Constitution covers more than Corporate “people” and unlimited guns.

    Perhaps this is one reason the Right wants to remove the 14th Amendment. It’s inconvenient to their making the U.S. like Iran, the perfect Republican state.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Libertarian1  about 11 years ago

    Jade

    A hypothetical question but of interest to me. For a judge are moral conflicts acceptable while economic ones are not?

    Again a hypo. Judge W is gay, madly in love and wants to get married but the Constitution was amended so he can’t. If he votes to invalidate the constitution he personally will be able to get married. Is that a conflict and should he be forcibly recused?

    Hypo case B. Obama temporarily stops all oil drilling in an area. Oil companies sue. If the Judge owns 1 share of the oil companies stock in his 401K should he be forcibly recused?

     •  Reply
  8. Me 3 23 2020
    ChukLitl Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Under the 1st Ammendment, all laws regulating or repsecting such a sacrosact institution as marriage are void.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    Libertarian1  about 11 years ago

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/06/timeforadivorce106646.html

     •  Reply
  10. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    “Again a hypo. Judge W is gay, madly in love and wants to get married but the Constitution was amended so he can’t. If he votes to invalidate the constitution he personally will be able to get married. Is that a conflict and should he be forcibly recused?”

    The question, reversed: is a straight judge with a straight relationship who is potentially conservative (since the judge was appointed by Republicans) acceptable? Can a black judge decide an affirmative action case? Can a white judge decide an affirmative action case? Can a male judge decide an abortion case? Can a female judge decide an abortion case?

    The same people who championed Feldman’s decision to stop the moratorium are now calling for Walker’s removal. I never called for Feldman’s removal. How interesting it is when a situation doesn’t work out for one, that they contradict their own previous stances.

    But this can go on and on and on. His [Walker’s] ruling is impartial, read it. The opposition’s case was bunk, they had no facts, they had nothing. He left NOTHING for even a conservative judge to debunk. It’s entirely based on the case.

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    Libertarian1  about 11 years ago

    Jade

    You waffled on my question and changed it to a straight judge etc. My question is if there is a direct personal benefit to the judge. The straight judge would get no personal benefit. Similar the black/white male/female judges would get no personal benefit.

    Here in NYC the Speaker of the House, Sheldon Silver, is a trial lawyer. He is a member of a law firm that litigates trials He gets paid from them every year, a large salary. He routinely refuses to even consider any type of tort reform. For Democrats that is perfectly acceptable.

     •  Reply
  12. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    But-but -but homophobia is SOOOO profitable.

     •  Reply
  13. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    “You waffled on my question and changed it to a straight judge etc. My question is if there is a direct personal benefit to the judge. The straight judge would get no personal benefit. Similar the black/white male/female judges would get no personal benefit.”

    If a straight judge, married or divorced or otherwise, would get absolutely zero benefit from a gay marriage ban………….. how does that make a case for a gay marriage ban? Also, your saying that a woman would have 0 benefit from an abortion case or a black judge having 0 benefit from an affirmative action case is absolutely false. Even the defendants of Prop 8 don’t think the Judge’s orientation was the issue. Why then, is his orientation an issue, whereas a judge’s race, ethnicity, age, or religious bias? Are you telling me a conservative Christian judge would have ABSOLUTELY NO benefit from ruling on Prop 8? Then why does a gay judge? Sounds like selective prejudice to me. Especially considering he has, in the past, ruled against gays in a number of cases.
     •  Reply
  14. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    ^ Lies, I can’t get drafted, they haven’t repealed DADT. And as long as it isn’t repealed, the gay population will suddenly “spike” if there’s a draft.

     •  Reply
  15. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    Libertarian: You’re saying that a gay judge can’t legitimately rule on a gay marriage issue.

    Do you REALLY want to slap the judge’s face on this?

    REALLY?

    Don’t answer until you REALLY think about how hard you want to slap his face.

    For instance, are you equally willing to slap the face of any straight judge who ignores “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis” in order to rule against it? REALLY?

     •  Reply
  16. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Since I’ve already linked to it elsewhere, today’s “Bad Reporter” is a good one:

    http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/asmussen/

    (From the SF Chron site, “Ground Zero” on this issue.)

     •  Reply
  17. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 11 years ago

    Clearly no judge who is gay OR straight can rule on this without a conflict of interest.

     •  Reply
  18. Jollyroger
    pirate227  about 11 years ago

    Seems like latent homosexuals are always the most homophobic, right Church?

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  about 11 years ago

    the homosexual judge ignored human history….no nation ever flourished that tolerated open illicit sexual practises, including sodomy. (forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah?)

    his “ruling” was a personal opinion screed denouncing the historical acceptance by every age and every country of “marriage” being reserved for husband and wife, just as God married Adam and Eve in Eden as our example…and gave the Law and the rules for marriage. this judge hates and slanders heterosexuality.

    if our constitution is stretched to make same sex partners equal in “marriage”…..then our culture has been DEvolved. What is next….man and beast unions? multiple partners? Legal sex with small children? Religious sex as pagans in rebellion to God practised long ago?

    this slope is 100% downward…personally and nationally.

     •  Reply
  20. Missing large
    Odon  about 11 years ago

    It’s disgusting reading Disgusted’s rant. The judge ignored human history? How about the judge followed the laws of our country not the limitations of your church.

     •  Reply
  21. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    “(forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah?)”

    Sodom and Gomorrah is a parable about the failings of Pride and Gluttony. You know, such things as “I know better than anyone else how people should behave” and “I have billions of dollars to spend on my lavish home.” A lesson about homosexuality it is not. Read your Bible before randomly spouting off about its teachings. Incidentally, Sodom and Gomorrah is first mentioned in Genesis, which is a chapter of the Old Testament. Do you believe the country should be ruled by Old Testament law? Do you think Fundamental Islamist extremists are bad? Well then you need to look at some of the stuff in the Old Testament. No shellfish, women with periods, and shaving of your beard, for starters.

    “if our constitution is stretched”

    Marriage isn’t in the Constitution at all. That was why they tried to add an Amendment (in lesser educated terms: ‘add something to’) to the Constitution to specifically exclude this minority. The only portions of the constitution that apply here are: the 1st Amendment, which means freedom from Religion, and the 14th Amendment, which means equal protection for all citizens.

    “this slope is 100% downward…personally and nationally.”

    Why is it that every state with a gay marriage ban DOESN’T have a Divorce ban? Why doesn’t this enrage you? Why aren’t you mad that the Divorce ban proposed as a joke after Prop8 didn’t get very far? Don’t you care about marriage? Only the church should be able to marry or divorce people and only in the most extreme of circumstances.

    “What is next….man and beast unions?”

    If you want animals to have human rights you’d best join PETA and get started. You won’t get to marry your pet if you don’t get started!!

    “multiple partners? ”

    That’s what the Mormons want. After all, the Bible is wrought with polygamy. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 Concubines. Yum yum. King David had 8.

    “Legal sex with small children?”

    That’s what the Catholic church is working on.

    “Religious sex as pagans in rebellion to God practised long ago?”

    You’ve already got to arrest some vastly large percentage of heterosexual couples for sodomy. Blow jobs, for example, are sodomy, as much fun as they are to give. :D
     •  Reply
  22. John adams1
    Motivemagus  about 11 years ago

    disgustedtaxpayer:

    The New Testament overrides the Old Testament, in Jesus’ own words - something the fundamentalists like to ignore. Hence: irrelevant. The law of the New Testament is love. Your statement “no nation ever flourished that tolerated open illicit sexual practises, including sodomy” is hilariously wrong, having left out Ancient Greece, Republican and Imperial Rome, Persia, and Egypt, each of which covers from several hundred to several thousand years of history – any one of them far more than the US – keeping in mind that conservatives like talking about ancient Greece and Rome as the source of Western civilization and urging that they be studied more in schools. I’m not even counting the fact that there were gay married couples in the Middle Ages married in the Church.
     •  Reply
  23. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    “grainbelt Genius_badge said, about 3 hours ago

    A romantic ceremony of balls and balls.”

    Well, find yourself a nice man and give it a try.

     •  Reply
  24. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    Who pays attention to baseball these days?

     •  Reply
  25. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member about 11 years ago

    ^ To me the term doesn’t really matter all that much, if I go through the government it should be a civil union, regardless, and as long as I have the legal protections it’s not that big of a deal to me. But as we both know, the Hawaii Republican Governor vetoed a bill that would give equal protections to same-sex civil unions, and as such, it’s made evident that terminology is not the issue here.

     •  Reply
  26. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    So 50 million people, as long as they’ve been to a baseball game, are enough to overrule the Constitution on Church’s planet?

    You and Disgusted should hook up, Church…you’d get along just fine.

    On your planet.

     •  Reply
  27. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    Churchy,

    Geeze, you’re correct. http://tinyurl.com/omsmcs

    Still, your attitude is lousy.

     •  Reply
  28. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    And who said socialists don’t like baseball?

     •  Reply
  29. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    Church says: “I don’t think a Judge can unilaterally redefine the word “marriage””

    Do you believe a judge can apply the “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis” tests to determine if a government interest trumps a Constitutional right?

    Church says: “I believe in Civil Unions with all the benefits afforded gays that straights have.”

    So you believe in the doctrine of separate-but-equal. The Supreme Court no longer does, you know. Plessey vs Ferguson?

     •  Reply
  30. Missing large
    Libertarian1  about 11 years ago

    Anthony, I am amazed at you. You speak disapprovingly of the Supreme Court overturning well established law eg the CU case, Heller. Stare decisis!

    How can you possible approve of a court overturning Plessy? It had been the law of the land for well over 50 years.

    (To others this is my attempt at sarcasm).

    Bottom line. If the original decision was wrong it must be overturned.

     •  Reply
  31. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    I never did like that three-fifths of a person business…

     •  Reply
  32. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 11 years ago

    Presumably when the original decision was made a majority thought ti was right – a correct interpretation of the constitution. When it’s overturned a majority thinks it’s wrong – an incorrect interpretation of the constitution. Bottom line – both decisions are interpretations.

     •  Reply
  33. Canstock3682698
    myming  about 11 years ago

    GRAINBELT - the name says it all…

     •  Reply
  34. 100 2208
    parkersinthehouse  about 11 years ago

    just curious - still have to take blood tests before getting a license?

     •  Reply
  35. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    That’s state law, Parker. Most states no longer require blood tests, but you’d have to look up your state specifically.

     •  Reply
  36. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    Churchy,

    I’m a smartass, not an elitist. Just ask Bruce.

     •  Reply
  37. Green lingerie   003
    riley05  about 11 years ago

    Gotcha, Church. We are in agreement.

    In the Prop 8 ruling, the judge did not redefine a word. He just performed a couple of time-tested tests to show that denying a right to one segment of the population is, in this case, unconstitutional.

     •  Reply
  38. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    Re: who catches?

    Maybe they take turns.

     •  Reply
  39. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Just remember, it’s the catcher who gives the signals.

    And with some practices, pitching and catching is simultaneous and reciprocal. Rotational symmetry, donchya know…

     •  Reply
  40. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  about 11 years ago

    oooo.. sexy…

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Tom Toles

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement