|
Presto posted:He might be one of those old-school Republicans that actually believed in things like the constitution and limited government interference in private lives. I remember how great it was for gays when old-school limited government Republicans ran the country.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The Texas Observer had asked a bunch of county clerks what they would do if the stay were lifted  I'm gonna enjoy posting all the gay marriage pictures of the hundreds of gay couples outside the County Clerk's office.  SedanChair posted:But Rickhoff does seem to be a very capable and principled administrator. All the articles about him online praise his reforms and attention to detail. quote:Back in the states, Rickhoff enjoyed a seven-year stint teaching special ed at Southwest Independent School District where he learned the South Side “pretty drat well.” Perhaps fated to follow the footsteps of his father, he ran for County Clerk in 1990 and lost. “I wasn’t supported by my party originally,” he says. Undeterred, Rickhoff eventually acceded to the office in 1995. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
5th Circuit granted Mississippi's request for a stay, so whoever was worried about Michigan being the worst state, no worries there. Order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/249190527/14-60837-Stay-Granted
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Hail Satan
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
katium posted:5th Circuit granted Mississippi's request for a stay, so whoever was worried about Michigan being the worst state, no worries there. They're allowing MS to join the hearing for TX and LA that is happening on January 9th. They said they felt that 'expediting' the case is a fair trade for allowing a stay for now. Assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
what happened posted:Hail Satan Yes, actually. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Also Bexar County wouldn't mind pillaging citizen marriage licenses off from foolish other county clerks getting Tea Party marching orders and trying to hold off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
jkyuusai posted:They're allowing MS to join the hearing for TX and LA that is happening on January 9th. They said they felt that 'expediting' the case is a fair trade for allowing a stay for now. Assholes. Look on the bright side. Now when all 3 bans are overturned for good, they're at the same time. 3 times as much tears all on the same day
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Also Bexar County wouldn't mind pillaging citizen marriage licenses off from foolish other county clerks getting Tea Party marching orders and trying to hold off. For those not familiar with the mutilations perpetrated on English in Central Texas, the county surrounding San Antonio, "Bexar County", is locally pronounced "Bear" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
emfive posted:For those not familiar with the mutilations perpetrated on English in Central Texas, the county surrounding San Antonio, "Bexar County", is locally pronounced "Bear" It's actually a mutilation of Spanish and to be fair it's a more plausible Anglicization of the name than the phonetic English pronunciation "beck-sar" would be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
I don't understand why government stays in the marriage business. A few states are desperately defending an Abrahamic/Christian view of marriage when they would be better off not recognizing marriages at all. Revoke all marriage licenses and get out the business altogether and that should make everyone happy. Why is marriage so important for governments to recognize and license it? When it comes to dividing property that can be established by cohabitation, shared accounts, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
kordavox posted:... Revoke all marriage licenses and get out the business altogether and that should make everyone happy. ... Iol if you actually think this
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:35
|
|
kordavox posted:I don't understand why government stays in the marriage business. A few states are desperately defending an Abrahamic/Christian view of marriage when they would be better off not recognizing marriages at all. Revoke all marriage licenses and get out the business altogether and that should make everyone happy. Why is marriage so important for governments to recognize and license it? When it comes to dividing property that can be established by cohabitation, shared accounts, etc. How about you read the loving thread? This one has been argued over and over, you can read those arguments if you put a modicum of effort in.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Marry everyone to everyone and everything else, problem solved forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
MARRIAGE ARGUMENT 101: If marriage was not a legal thing then basic stuff like inheritance and joint property would be complicated and confusing. In addition to this the government has a vested interest in kids being raised in households that can provide for them easily so they grow up to be good taxpayers. Therefore marriage is great in the government's eyes. Since none of this specifically mentions "vagina and penis making babies", there's no real reason it can't apply to same-sex relationships. Explained Like You're Five as the cool kids on the reddits say because pulling out the "just abolish all marriages" card in 2014 doesn't deserve a better explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
emfive posted:For those not familiar with the mutilations perpetrated on English in Central Texas, the county surrounding San Antonio, "Bexar County", is locally pronounced "Bear" Please. Her in the uk we have costessey and wymondham. (The former is pronounced 'cossy' the second 'windham' or 'windam' depending on how local your accent is)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Please. Her in the uk we have costessey and wymondham. (The former is pronounced 'cossy' the second 'windham' or 'windam' depending on how local your accent is) I've heard it said that the weird English pronunciations of town/region names were intentionally altered to serve as shibboleths to distinguish locals from outsiders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
kordavox posted:I don't understand why government stays in the marriage business. A few states are desperately defending an Abrahamic/Christian view of marriage when they would be better off not recognizing marriages at all. Revoke all marriage licenses and get out the business altogether and that should make everyone happy. Why is marriage so important for governments to recognize and license it? When it comes to dividing property that can be established by cohabitation, shared accounts, etc. Yes, let's require everyone to get lawyers for all the basic stuff marriage does by default.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
It is highly amusing that the libertarian worldview requires a law degree to even attempt to navigate the contracts you'll be entering into on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Michigan throws down the gauntlet in its race to become The Worst State for gay folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Michigan throws down the gauntlet in its race to become The Worst State for gay folks. The Satanic Temple has been doing wonderful things in Oklahoma and Florida, using the same aspect of "Freedom of religion"/"deeply held beliefs". I wonder if what Michigan politicians will think of these bills when Satanists want equal rights and representation. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
How in the gently caress do you determine whether someone's idiocy is due to a "sincerely" held belief? If you're Christian but skipped church one week or had a crush on a Muslim girl at one point, does that make you unable to claim this sincerity? Edit: The text of the bill defines several terms, but not "sincerely." Hmm. It's almost as if they want it to be vague and selectively enforceable. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/htm/2014-HIB-5958.htm The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:How in the gently caress do you determine whether someone's idiocy is due to a "sincerely" held belief? If you skipped church one week or had a crush on a Muslim girl at one point, does that make you unable to claim this sincerity? Ding ding ding. It's how they get to ignore Satanists or whatever group they don't like this week. It's basically "You have to have existed for this long to have rights" while ignoring that minority religions (or even major Christian sects/beliefs that fell out of favor with the powers that be) have been actively destroyed for all of history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:How in the gently caress do you determine whether someone's idiocy is due to a "sincerely" held belief? If you're Christian but skipped church one week or had a crush on a Muslim girl at one point, does that make you unable to claim this sincerity? Courts have been ruling on if a belief is sincere for some time, mostly with respect to conscientious objectors to military service. It's left to the court to decide and that's not really something you can write a rule that works on. It's a lovely bill, but not because of that. rkajdi posted:Ding ding ding. It's how they get to ignore Satanists or whatever group they don't like this week. It's basically "You have to have existed for this long to have rights" while ignoring that minority religions (or even major Christian sects/beliefs that fell out of favor with the powers that be) have been actively destroyed for all of history. Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Wrong. I am figuratively shocked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Wrong. I am right. Sincerity is an awful standard, since it doesn't actually mean anything. Sincerity of beliefs for conscientious objectors has been all over the place as a standard, and depends a lot on the the built-in prejudices of the people involved in the case. Setting up subjective standards to something that's supposed to objective is a poor setup. EDIT: As an example, we as a society always have treated newcomer religions with less legal and actual respect than existing ones. That's what I mean by the "You have to be this old" comment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
emfive posted:For those not familiar with the mutilations perpetrated on English in Central Texas, the county surrounding San Antonio, "Bexar County", is locally pronounced "Bear" It sounds more like Bayer, the aspirin makers, to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Morter posted:The Satanic Temple has been doing wonderful things in Oklahoma and Florida, using the same aspect of "Freedom of religion"/"deeply held beliefs". I wonder if what Michigan politicians will think of these bills when Satanists want equal rights and representation. I know it's been said before, but man that statue is cool as gently caress and I would gladly have it be displayed in any given Greek/Roman inspired public building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I know it's been said before, but man that statue is cool as gently caress and I would gladly have it be displayed in any given Greek/Roman inspired public building. I'd put it next to my front door, in a parallel world where my wife has no power to veto my whims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
I bet it would become some kind of tradition for lawyers to slap his right knee on the way into court or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Morter posted:The Satanic Temple has been doing wonderful things in Oklahoma and Florida, using the same aspect of "Freedom of religion"/"deeply held beliefs". I wonder if what Michigan politicians will think of these bills when Satanists want equal rights and representation. In fact, the Satanic Temple just scored another victory in Florida, where they will have their holiday display put up in the Florida Capitol building. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I am right. Sincerity is an awful standard, since it doesn't actually mean anything. Sincerity of beliefs for conscientious objectors has been all over the place as a standard, and depends a lot on the the built-in prejudices of the people involved in the case. Setting up subjective standards to something that's supposed to objective is a poor setup. There is no reasonable way to set up an objective standard when it comes to belief. Any such attempt would certainly fail, and would certainly be heavily biased towards existing religions because those have doctrines you can objectively examine instead of idiosyncratic individual views. Courts look at people's mental state all the time. It's a fundamental part of criminal law, determining what someone intended. And there are, except in very rare cases, simply no good ways to convert something that requires the use of human judgment like a determination of what someone is actually thinking to hard and fast rules. Courts can take the 'sincerity' requirement and come up with general guidelines on how to test it and what it means, but none of those will cover everything and there's always going to be something that requires a court to exercise its own judgment based on subjective factors no matter how many times you've tried to create an objective rule. Basically, your argument entirely relies on the unspoken assumption that you can make objective rules about how to determine people's beliefs. That's obviously wrong - but if you think it's not I would be happy to knock down any objective rules you can come up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
katium posted:5th Circuit granted Mississippi's request for a stay, so whoever was worried about Michigan being the worst state, no worries there. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Michigan throws down the gauntlet in its race to become The Worst State for gay folks. gently caress this state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
If they do pass it, I hope a religious officiant (e.g. a Reform Rabbi) would try to take advantage of their deeply held religious belief that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:If they do pass it, I hope a religious officiant (e.g. a Reform Rabbi) would try to take advantage of their deeply held religious belief that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married. Or my already Same-Sex-Married associate pastor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:If they do pass it, I hope a religious officiant (e.g. a Reform Rabbi) would try to take advantage of their deeply held religious belief that same-sex couples ought to be able to get married. Nah, let's keep putting our trust in the Satanic Temple:   And yes, the altar being used here for the "pink mass" is the tombstone of Fred Phelps' dead mother.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is no reasonable way to set up an objective standard when it comes to belief. Any such attempt would certainly fail, and would certainly be heavily biased towards existing religions because those have doctrines you can objectively examine instead of idiosyncratic individual views. No, my argument is since it's not objective it should not be included. Allowing the judging of beliefs allows for unspoken or unconscious bias to be included into the equation. The easy solution would be to just accept everyone's word as sincere or just ignore them all completely. But allowing a judge to determine "sincerity" just means you get more randomness (in reality just bigotry) into a process that is supposed to be standardized-- every person in the same jurisdiction is supposed to be treated exactly the same by the law given the same circumstances. We're a million miles away from this because we allow lots of discretion, which just reinforces the power held by the same priveleged groups. In any case, we shouldn't be allowing any sort of religious set asides for any civil rights laws period. Allowing an easy opting out of basic rules led to a bunch of very convienient beliefs to keep things from actually changing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:No, my argument is since it's not objective it should not be included. Allowing the judging of beliefs allows for unspoken or unconscious bias to be included into the equation. The easy solution would be to just accept everyone's word as sincere or just ignore them all completely. But allowing a judge to determine "sincerity" just means you get more randomness (in reality just bigotry) into a process that is supposed to be standardized-- every person in the same jurisdiction is supposed to be treated exactly the same by the law given the same circumstances. We're a million miles away from this because we allow lots of discretion, which just reinforces the power held by the same priveleged groups. A solution of "accept everyone's word as sincere or ignore them all completely" is an obviously terrible solution. I don't think I even really need to explain why. Also "every person in the same jurisdiction is supposed to be treated exactly the same by the law given the same circumstances" is indeed a principle of the law. But it's not the only one. What you're saying here is that, to the extent we cannot mechanically determine a result without any application of judgment we should apply a default rule is dumb and would cause insanely bad results in any number of situations. For example it is a truism that right now, we cannot catch and punish every single murderer. We're just not capable of it: there is probably always someone who has murdered someone who is at large. Your principle demands we treat all people in the same circumstances - murdered someone - the same. That's obviously idiotic. Instead, while we maintain the principle that the same circumstances should have the same result, we do not then assume that because we cannot determine the circumstances exactly we must treat everyone in that same zone of uncertainty the same. Here, the principle that "every person in the same jurisdiction is supposed to be treated exactly the same by the law given the same circumstances" is completely comparable with a "sincere belief" requirement. That's one of the circumstances: my sincere belief that killing is wrong is different from my insincere belief that paying taxes is wrong. It is very similar to how a person who intentionally shot someone is very different circumstances than someone who completely unintentionally shot someone. Sometimes we can't tell the difference without the application of human judgment, but that doesn't mean we abolish the distinction between murder and manslaughter. rkajdi posted:In any case, we shouldn't be allowing any sort of religious set asides for any civil rights laws period. Allowing an easy opting out of basic rules led to a bunch of very convienient beliefs to keep things from actually changing. Absolutely we shouldn't. But that doesn't make your rant against the idea of weighing sincerity any more correct. This is a bad law and it should be opposed. It's just you're opposing it for a manifestly stupid reason and that does not help the case one bit. The best reason to oppose this is something we all know: that the concern of these legislators for people's "religious freedom" is insincere and that the actual goal is to legalize private bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Absolutely we shouldn't. But that doesn't make your rant against the idea of weighing sincerity any more correct. This is a bad law and it should be opposed. It's just you're opposing it for a manifestly stupid reason and that does not help the case one bit. The best reason to oppose this is something we all know: that the concern of these legislators for people's "religious freedom" is insincere and that the actual goal is to legalize private bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:It sounds more like Bayer, the aspirin makers, to me. That's kind-of how I say "bear". Or, more accurately perhaps, I say "Bayer" without a strong "y" consonant. This is a super-interesting derail I started (and VitalSigns was right of course that it's a mangling of Spanish, not English).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:12
|
|