|
Deuce posted:Ask them if they ever once expressed this belief before it became obvious that marriage equality was going to be a thing. Now now, let's be fair. They've been saying this (with the same implications that straight peoples' marriages somehow aren't "government intervention" and would thus be protected) since at least 2004.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Now now, let's be fair. They've been saying this (with the same implications that straight peoples' marriages somehow aren't "government intervention" and would thus be protected) since at least 2004. The intellectually honest ones are in favor of treating straight marriages the same way. It's really an attempt to divorce the legal, governmental aspects of marriage (the "civil union" part) from the religious aspects once and for all. Of course religion has fairly well lost its grip on this specific issue regardless over the past two years, but I'm sure there will be another marriage fight in 50 years or so on another topic (I'm betting polamory/polygamy personally). In the abstract it would be desirable to short-circuit these future fights altogether by just separating out the religious aspects and directly recognizing the thing we want (stable family units). Whether you think that separating religion out would actually aid those future fights is another matter, one that probably depends on your opinion of the intellectual honesty of religious folk and so on. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Not to break from libertarian chat, but the Georgia bills have been tabled due to a ton of backlash http://huff.to/1htgk4B. Hopefully it's for good, but considering that we have politicians who've said that homosexuality is satanic, I have a feeling this won't be the last of this. gently caress this state. 
lambeth fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
lambeth posted:Not to break from libertarian chat, but the Georgia bills have been tabled due to a ton of backlash http://huff.to/1htgk4B. Hopefully it's for good, but considering that we have politicians who've said that homosexuality is satanic, I have a feeling this won't be the last of this. gently caress this state. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure all forms of Satanism openly embrace homosexuality, or most other forms of sexual "deviancy" that are between consenting adults that don't harm others. So they're not technically wrong. PS: Hail Satan.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
lambeth posted:Not to break from libertarian chat, but the Georgia bills have been tabled due to a ton of backlash http://huff.to/1htgk4B. Hopefully it's for good, but considering that we have politicians who've said that homosexuality is satanic, I have a feeling this won't be the last of this. gently caress this state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Morter posted:For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure all forms of Satanism openly embrace homosexuality, or most other forms of sexual "deviancy" that are between consenting adults that don't harm others. So they're not technically wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
It has been said often here, but I really am impressed by the change this decade has brought. NYT token "reasonable" conservative: Can't imagine THAT being written in 2004. (The full opinion is full of maudlin' handwringin' equivocatin' privilegin', but the very existence of the piece shows the author nonetheless recognizes the way the wind blows.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:It has been said often here, but I really am impressed by the change this decade has brought.  Cardinal Douthat. Right up there with George Will's "the gays are being poor sports" line from earlier today:quote:“That’s a settled issue,” the pundit noted. “That said, this too must be said: It’s a funny kind of sore winner in the gay rights movement that would say, ‘A photographer doesn’t want to photograph my wedding — I’ve got lots of other photographers I could go to, but I’m going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this.’”
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Them drat Negroes should just go to lunch where they're wanted instead of makin' me serve 'em!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
That Douthat piece isn't bad in broad strokes but he tries to pull off a sleight of hand where the Arizona bill was a negotiated surrender akin to the exemptions in same sex marriage bills. Arizona was offering nothing to gay couples and exemptions in marriage laws are never for secular businesses open to the public.quote:Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out. quote:Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:... Was just about to say that part was almost Christian, with all the stuff about bearing the sins of our fathers. He's so close to getting it. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:It has been said often here, but I really am impressed by the change this decade has brought. Ross Douche-hat posted:gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan Since when has Andrew Sullivan been "gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Since when has Andrew Sullivan been "gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor"? It's not totally unfair. He's been pushing it as the beginning and end of all LGBT issues since the late eighties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:It's not totally unfair. He's been pushing it as the beginning and end of all LGBT issues since the late eighties. Yeah, but phrasing it as "progenitor" is misleading in that it implies that he somehow started the idea. Like gays were just sitting around thinking "yeah, sex is great, and I like boyfriends/girlfriends, but there's just nothing else available for me to want" and Sullivan just showed up and said "hey, let's all try to get married!" or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Yeah, but phrasing it as "progenitor" is misleading in that it implies that he somehow started the idea. Like gays were just sitting around thinking "yeah, sex is great, and I like boyfriends/girlfriends, but there's just nothing else available for me to want" and Sullivan just showed up and said "hey, let's all try to get married!" or something. Well more like gay political groups were worried about getting beaten to death in the streets and GRID (at the time) and Andrew Sullivan came around and said they shouldn't worry about all that and should try to push for marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:
I hope I never hear someone drop that "hammer of government" line in my presence. It's so incredibly disingenuous to moan about gays using laws to stop discrimination when 20(?) states had it written into their constitutions that gays can't get married. And states continue to try to pass things like the recent Kansas/Arizona/Georgia bills just to get as much hurt in as possible before everything gets taken care of at the national level. Yes, please tell me how the hammer of government has been used to make life so unbearable for all you poor anti-SSM people out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
We're in day 5 of 8 of the trial in Michigan and the State's first witness graduated with his bachelor's degree in 2008. Somehow, I don't think a guy my age can be considered an expert to the level required by a court with only 6 years of post-degree experience. ... the judge agrees. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:We're in day 5 of 8 of the trial in Michigan and the State's first witness graduated with his bachelor's degree in 2008. Somehow, I don't think a guy my age can be considered an expert to the level required by a court with only 6 years of post-degree experience. Don't they only have, like, six expert witnesses to draw from? None of them seemed particularly stellar. If they all get struck for being inadequate, the plaintiffs would likely get a walkover win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Rumors are that Regnerus may be a witness. On one hand, it pisses me off that someone blatantly dishonest like him gets to be the public face of sociology for a while. On the other, I would absolutely love to see him have to answer things under oath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Don't they only have, like, six expert witnesses to draw from? None of them seemed particularly stellar. If they all get struck for being inadequate, the plaintiffs would likely get a walkover win. It is pretty surprising that the state is doing such a piss-poor job about defending the ban. They don't seem to be putting anything forward at all or even calling real witnesses. The entire country over and they can't find anyone? I mean, I'm super happy about their incompetency, but it's just weird. But that's Michigan for you, run by the madmen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:It is pretty surprising that the state is doing such a piss-poor job about defending the ban. They don't seem to be putting anything forward at all or even calling real witnesses. The entire country over and they can't find anyone? Perhaps an appeal on incompetence and then bump the case back down in a re-trial to keep The Gays away until ~2020?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Perhaps an appeal on incompetence and then bump the case back down in a re-trial to keep The Gays away until ~2020? What if Justice Scalia rides in on a stallion and beheads the judge just before he reads his verdict?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What if Justice Scalia rides in on a stallion and beheads the judge just before he reads his verdict? "Shocking, but not out of character" -WaPo Supremes reporter
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What if Justice Scalia rides in on a stallion and beheads the judge just before he reads his verdict? Not to be rude, but I'm pretty sure everyone here is discussing what's going to happen after that. Because that's a given. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Rumors are that Regnerus may be a witness. On one hand, it pisses me off that someone blatantly dishonest like him gets to be the public face of sociology for a while. On the other, I would absolutely love to see him have to answer things under oath. Follow the mlive livestream. Regenerus is currently testifying. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/03/live_from_the_courthouse_day_5.html#comments
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What if Justice Scalia rides in on a stallion and beheads the judge just before he reads his verdict? Then a bunch of state and appellate judges double down, and find ways to cite that beheading in support of rulings that same-sex marriage is not only legal but compulsory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6b28_story.htmlThe Washington Post posted:WASHINGTON — Arizona recently showed the rest of the nation how difficult it can be to balance the religious rights of some with the guarantees all have to be treated equally and protected from discrimination. This is the case that inspired the creation of the Arizona bill recently vetoed by Jan Brewer. E: My experience with copyright law makes me not comfortable pasting in the entire article. Go read it if you want the whole thing. Here's the summary: Defendant: A Jewish tattoo artist shouldn't be compelled to ink “a giant swastika on someone’s forearm.” Plaintiff: “Whatever service you provide, you must not discriminate against customers when you engage in public commerce.” cruft fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:What if Justice Scalia rides in on a stallion and beheads Nth Doctor posted:Regenerus Will his head grow back? He sounds like a Marvel villain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
quote:[The case] involves a New Mexico couple, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, whose company, Elane Photography, Did she misspell her own name on the incorporation paperwork or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Will his head grow back? He sounds like a Marvel villain. I was thinking an incredibly lazy Time Lord, myself. "They call me Regenerus, because I regenerate.  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I was thinking an incredibly lazy Time Lord, myself. You would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
cruft posted:Defendant: A Jewish tattoo artist shouldn't be compelled to ink “a giant swastika on someone’s forearm.” Wait, can Jewish people even be tattooists? Or does the ban only apply to getting tattoos themselves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Wait, can Jewish people even be tattooists? Or does the ban only apply to getting tattoos themselves? I presume reform Jews can do whatever they like including give + get tattoos. But I started GISing:  (apparently)  
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Wait, can Jewish people even be tattooists? Or does the ban only apply to getting tattoos themselves? The ban only applies to getting. Lev. 19:28 (and would include scarification, too) On the other hand, there are interpretations that only idolatrous tattoos are prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Uh, a Jewish tattoo artist refusing to make a swastika tattoo is not religion related. Unless they somehow got so retarded and thought the Holocaust was an ancient holy way and part of the Torah or something. Someone should really ask them sharia related situations. Like, a Muslim man allowed to refuse service to kafir aka infidel aka most of everyone else. A Muslim fireman or health worker refusing to touch a woman not his wife or family or refusing service to women not covered. Note that most Muslims don't think like that but someone should really ask these chucklefucks how much they would be supporting the sharia law with this law and watch them squirm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
I'm ethically okay with Jews refusing to serve Nazis because you shouldn't have to serve people you feel physically threatened by. Gay couples don't have a history of violence toward evangelical Christians.wid posted:Someone should really ask them sharia related situations. Like, a Muslim man allowed to refuse service to kafir aka infidel aka most of everyone else. A Muslim fireman or health worker refusing to touch a woman not his wife or family or refusing service to women not covered. Note that most Muslims don't think like that but someone should really ask these chucklefucks how much they would be supporting the sharia law with this law and watch them squirm. 
Lycus fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Good morning Equaligoons! Don't forget that today a Marvel Villain is getting cross examined on the stand for being a shitheel at data collection and possibly fabricating a study.  Yesterday's comment stream. Typically the reporter has been putting a link to the next day once it is posted. My best guess as to today's URL
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
This dude looks awesome. I want to be this dude when I'm older. Maybe without the melanoma tho (or nazi tattoo, while we're at it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:Good morning Equaligoons! Don't forget that today a Marvel Villain is getting cross examined on the stand for being a shitheel at data collection and possibly fabricating a study. Regenerus did not have a good day on the stand today. quote:Regnerus said his study didn't address causation, and the same-sex relationship may have nothing to do with the negative outcomes of the children studied. Regnerus "expects" that societal perceptions and "stigma" of gay coupling has changed since the children in the study were young. quote:Cooper: The NFSS study documented differences between groups but did "not concern itself with the magnitude of those differences?" quote:Cooper reading from statement by Amato. Amato says the study was not intended to affirm or undermine the status of gay marriage and should "not be used to press" any political agenda. Also, UT distanced themselves from his study yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Can't they just like, revoke his degree?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:13
|
|