|
rkajdi posted:I'd figure these guys would hold off a bit anyway. SOCTUS didn't really issue a decision, they just didn't hear the case. There's zero precedence from it. If we get into a scenario where the GOP wins the next presidential election and RGB's seat is up for grabs, that allows everything to roll backwards very easily once Kennedy no longer is the swing vote on this issue. And that's not exactly an unlikely scenario. I have to think it's why the current four conservatives didn't want to hear the case. A few years of marriage equality is a better position for them than strict scrutiny over sexual orientation being the law of the land. I don't see marriage equality going away once established. Who is going to have standing to sue over someone else's marriage? Interracial marriage was at least as controversial and didn't gain majority support in America until the 1990s, but you didn't see any real attempt to overturn Loving because if progressivism has had one victory it's that being openly identified as a bigot is toxic in US politics. I think you're right that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are aiming to limit the damage by preventing strict scrutiny from being applied to sexual orientation. If the last state hold-outs had any sense they'd immediately stop defending these bans to prevent any chance of a circuit split or something forcing SCOTUS to take the case. I expect the campaign against gay rights after this will take the same form as the attacks on civil rights and women's rights: facially neutral laws advancing important state interests to "protect women's health", "ensure the integrity of our voting system", "remove minority entitlements", "protect the children" or what-have-you, and oops did that make it harder for you to exercise your constitutional rights? Gee awfully sorry, what a tragically unavoidable side effect.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not saying it's a winning argument, I'm just saying he gift wrapped that turd about as well as he possibly could so I don't think calling him a bad lawyer is warranted. Oh I'm not saying that it isn't as sound a legal argument as can be made, I'm saying the person making the argument has to know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and justify a indefensible position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
As of December 31st, marriage equality comes to Scotland. The Queen signed the bill making it official months ago, but the official date for when it takes effect wasn't announced until the government set the date hours ago. The law in Luxembourg takes effect the next day, and in the state of Florida it comes (at the latest) on January 5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
SC is becoming worse and worse every day. You guys should see the comments on articles the local papers are putting out about other states giving
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Also of note: GCC was the college that challenged and partially gutted Title IX during the 90's. It used to apply to every school, not just ones that take federal aid. So under the original method, all the Bible college sketchy sex assault rules would be as illegal as the stuff that's gotten major colleges into trouble with the Justice Department. Are you talking about Grove City College v. Bell? Because that didn't do what you claim and it was abrogated by Congress anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
quote:unelected judges I'm seeing this epithetic phrase being thrown around a lot these days, and I find it mind-boggling. Do they think SCOTUS should have to run national election campaigns? How is holding an unelected position, as per the constitution, negative? This casual disrespect for (what I believe is) the highest position one can hold below POTUS is incredibly irksome, and I find myself immediately discounting anything said by anyone using this phrase. You can disparage an entire subsection of humanity, this gay has heard that too many times to care, but if you have no respect for the legal system, then you really don't have a leg to stand on. On the one hand, I understand that this rhetoric is just used to rile up their base, but on the other, it just perpetuates ignorance. </rant>
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:I'm seeing this epithetic phrase being thrown around a lot these days, and I find it mind-boggling. Do they think SCOTUS should have to run national election campaigns? How is holding an unelected position, as per the constitution, negative? I've never really been able to get over the whole "activist judges"=judges who don't rule the way we want
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:I'm seeing this epithetic phrase being thrown around a lot these days, and I find it mind-boggling. Do they think SCOTUS should have to run national election campaigns? How is holding an unelected position, as per the constitution, negative? They did a thing "you" (you being the people bitching about it) didn't like. If they did a thing you liked then they are the best people on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:I'm seeing this epithetic phrase being thrown around a lot these days, and I find it mind-boggling. Do they think SCOTUS should have to run national election campaigns?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:I'm seeing this epithetic phrase being thrown around a lot these days, and I find it mind-boggling. Do they think SCOTUS should have to run national election campaigns? How is holding an unelected position, as per the constitution, negative? The whole notion of the Founders creating a system of checks and balances in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority is not a fact allowed to exist in their world view.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The whole notion of the Founders creating a system of checks and balances in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority is not a fact allowed to exist in their world view. That's the thing. They don't like that the majority isn't allowed to enforce its will on the minority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:That's the thing. They don't like that the majority isn't allowed to enforce its will on the minority. And the fact that the Founders specifically drew up the Constitution to stop that from happening is a fact that their world view, which includes all but worshiping the Founders, does not permit to exist. Most of these people would read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" to have an extra asterisk at that point saying "Except blacks, browns, yellows, Jews, Muslims, atheists, gays, and anyone else who isn't exactly like me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And the fact that the Founders specifically drew up the Constitution to stop that from happening is a fact that their world view, which includes all but worshiping the Founders, does not permit to exist. All men who are created equal are equal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
As lovely as it is for the citizens of states like Alaska to have to wait even longer for marriage equality, it's nice that these myopic politicians are making it very clear what side of history they stand on. Considering the speed that national approval is growing, I'd like to believe it won't take long for these opinions to sink them even in "deep red" states.SquadronROE posted:That's the thing. They don't like that the majority isn't allowed to enforce its will on the minority. Quite true, and pointing out how baffling that desire is makes for fun arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And the fact that the Founders specifically drew up the Constitution to stop that from happening is a fact that their world view, which includes all but worshiping the Founders, does not permit to exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:As lovely as it is for the citizens of states like Alaska to have to wait even longer for marriage equality, it's nice that these myopic politicians are making it very clear what side of history they stand on. Considering the speed that national approval is growing, I'd like to believe it won't take long for these opinions to sink them even in "deep red" states. Nah, the clever ones will just say "I was just upholding the law as was my duty to the office of [x]" and most people won't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
quote:"I just returned home with a group of hearty men from witnessing at the Homosexual Pride Parade in Springfield, Missouri. As usual, I was heartbroken by the age of those who have been captured by the 'lifestyle.' Take a look at these photos. Notice the young souls parading their sin in the public streets. It would have been better for these adults had they been drowned with a millstone around their necks than mislead one of these little ones. When we returned, I posted some of these images on my Facebook page. My intent was to prick the hearts of people to action. Homosexuality is gobbling up our young kids. There is nothing “gay” about it. They are being lured into a self-destructive behavior because they have bought the lie that homosexuality is normal. It isn’t. It is deviant. Someone needs to tell them, help them, and lead them to the truth. Our churches have turned a blind eye."- Dave Daubenmire, write for Matt Barber's site http://barbwire.com/2014/10/13/jesus-go-homosexual-parade/#1g33OMI2CrkucBQx.01 Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
quote:I just returned home with a group of hearty men The rest of this statement is officially Not Convincing Anyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
The Scottish government have just announced that same-sex marriages will start on December 31st.Mr. Nice! posted:Man I sure love the SedanChair "all the rich white gay people will quit fighting now and everyone else will suffer" quarterly derail. Eh, it was actually a major concern among the LGBT community in the UK, especially the trans community; the English bill is kinda lovely because of Civil Service meddling. At the time, Ben Summerskill and his mates in Stonewall were rather busy patting each other on the back; Stonewall, after all, being by design the "acceptable face" of gay and lesbian activism in the nineties, as opposed to the relatively radical Peter Tatchell's OUTrage!. Summerskill being ousted and replaced by Ruth Hunt as Stonewall's CEO is pretty much a recognition that there's still a lot of work to do. Personally, Ruth is really nice and recognises that Stonewall has a lot of work to do to help the bi and trans communities, especially given Stonewall's own actions in the past to said communities. One of Summerskill's major failings was aligning Stonewall's policy to Labour's then-policy of opposition, which ended up in a major embarrassment when the Lib Dems came out in support of same-sex marriage before Stonewall; gay Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert even said at the time that "it should not be my job to lobby Stonewall; it should be Stonewall's job to lobby me". Stonewall's historic opposition was then cited multiple times as reason to not pass same-sex marriage, even though they were very clearly out of step with the gay community on that issue. At least Summerskill wasn't as bad as Barney Frank was.  Legislative fixes to the shittiness won't come until after the next election, though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:http://barbwire.com/2014/10/13/jesus-go-homosexual-parade/#1g33OMI2CrkucBQx.01 Look at all of those homosexual couples (a good chunk of them 50 and older) looking to get gay-  married! Can't you see their self-destructive alternative lifestyle will lead to an early grave?! Won't someone think of the children?! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The rest of this statement is officially Not Convincing Anyone Stupid sexy Flanders
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a really weird criticism because the Founders did specifically empower white men to push their will on other groups/the Founders were literal slave owners. That extra asterisk very much implicitly existed up until the fourteenth amendment, and even then we had separate but equal (not even actually equal) doctrine up until 1954. I agree those people are stupid, but they aren't stupid because the Founders were awesome supporters of equal rights. As much as you can, and should, criticize the Founding Fathers, you still have to give them props for putting in a way to change the system. I spent some time looking over the Constitution of the Confederacy and there's a marked difference between what the Founding Fathers wrote and the Founders of the Confederacy's "gently caress you this is the way things are and always will be"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:and in the state of Florida it comes (at the latest) on January 5. Wait, what?  The various cases in Florida are all being appealed, and a stay is in effect. Where does January 5th come from?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Wait, what? Every place I'm reading says Brenner v Scott (now Brenner v Armstrong)'s stay is temporary and ends 91 days after the Supreme Court choosing to not hear the 3 similar cases (which is January 5th). Meanwhile, the first briefings for the 11th Circuit hearing are due in two days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Morter posted:Can't you see their self-destructive alternative lifestyle will lead to an early grave?! "Instead, they should drown with a millstone tied around their neck."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
nm, I misunderstood the old Title IX position.
rkajdi fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:As much as you can, and should, criticize the Founding Fathers, you still have to give them props for putting in a way to change the system. I spent some time looking over the Constitution of the Confederacy and there's a marked difference between what the Founding Fathers wrote and the Founders of the Confederacy's "gently caress you this is the way things are and always will be"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Hogmany should be even more fun this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Morter posted:Look at all of those homosexual couples (a good chunk of them 50 and older) looking to get gay- I can see people objecting to the chaps--I personally don't want to see anyone wearing leather chaps, gay or straight, male or female--but it takes a special crassness to look at the parents with kids and make a stink about it. One of the "rallies for marriage" in Utah used a family picture of two women and their kid, and the family was like, "Uh, hey, that's OUR FAMILY can you not use our picture as a symbol of end-times wickedness? Thanks."  Fray posted:Huh? Not only did the CSA constitution have an amendment process, it was a lower threshold than the one in the US Constitution. quote:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see marriage equality going away once established. Who is going to have standing to sue over someone else's marriage? Wouldn't that be the first employer who doesn't want to provide benefits to SSM spouses? It'll be couched in the whole lingo of "religious freedom" that's the already common talking point, but the takeaway would be the gutting of the actual rights given to married couples. And without an actual written standard of strict scrutiny, this case could be fought to the Supreme Court pretty easily. You'd figure this wouldn't be started until the court is safely anti-civil rights, so it may be a few years off still. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but we've just had a court gut the Voting Rights Act within the last two years. I don't see positive rights for actual minorities (not majority protected classes like mainstream Christians or whites) making any positive movements with SCOTUS without a radical change, like one of the current conservatie justices retiring or dying. quote:I expect the campaign against gay rights after this will take the same form as the attacks on civil rights and women's rights: facially neutral laws advancing important state interests to "protect women's health", "ensure the integrity of our voting system", "remove minority entitlements", "protect the children" or what-have-you, and oops did that make it harder for you to exercise your constitutional rights? Gee awfully sorry, what a tragically unavoidable side effect. Pretty much. Without explicit protected class status, marriage in hostile places is a right that de facto doesn't exist. If you can be fired for having a same sex spouse, you might as well not have the right to marry since it is economically impossible to do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
That's a bit hysterical. It's already illegal to discriminate based upon marital status and saying "we only discriminate against SSM" is pretty slam-dunk as far as legal arguments go. Private discrimination isn't going to go away but with all of the smackdowns the judges have laid on the ridiculous arguments made by the states in defense of straights-only marriage I bet they'd just love to get one of these in their courtroom to poo poo all over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Idaho's stay will be lifted and marriages start Wednesday morning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Awesome. On a side note, I saw this picture on a suggested page when I read about Idaho: It's pretty much AlaskaEquality.JPG. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Yeah, but not when it came to slavery. Article I, Section 9.I.4: I'm just saying that it's pretty impressive that they didn't simply write "We're in charge forever eateth ye olde dicke everyone else!!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Or more on point here's the punishment for rape, and every other thing they consider the same level: I'd just like to point out that under these rules you get the same penalty for sex with or without consent. That's pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Wouldn't that be the first employer who doesn't want to provide benefits to SSM spouses? It'll be couched in the whole lingo of "religious freedom" that's the already common talking point, but the takeaway would be the gutting of the actual rights given to married couples. None of them have managed to do it for interracial couples. evilweasel posted:I'd just like to point out that under these rules you get the same penalty for sex with or without consent. Well, having consensual sex is punished because merely being together in the same room over night is punished. So it's more that sharing a room with someone at all is as bad as rape to them. Like they aren't using that as language to euphemize having sex, they do mean being with anyone of the opposite sex overnight is the evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
God dammit, I shouldn't have looked, but I did. The Idaho Statesman has a .pdf of Governor Otter's Opposition to Motion to Dissovle Stay, which includes at the bottom of page 11: "Idaho’s law simply does not bear the marks of sexual orientation discrimination. It distinguishes between male-female unions and all other pairings—not between heterosexual unions and other relationships. Indeed, Idaho law allows a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian to marry a man." Also included is an argument about how gay marriage just hasn't been a thing long enough to be legally acceptable and I CAN'T READ ANYMORE AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:A straight white male came in? I've BEEN here jeez
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Happy Seafood Guy posted:God dammit, I shouldn't have looked, but I did. The Idaho Statesman has a .pdf of Governor Otter's Opposition to Motion to Dissovle Stay, which includes at the bottom of page 11: "Idaho’s law simply does not bear the marks of sexual orientation discrimination. It distinguishes between male-female unions and all other pairings—not between heterosexual unions and other relationships. Indeed, Idaho law allows a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian to marry a man." I am sure by end of this Butch Otter will be a category of gay men
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I am sure by end of this Butch Otter will be a category of gay men Otters have been a gay thing for a long time, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:41
|
|
