-
SCOTUS to hear gay marriage cases
-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…5f0c77bf39c_story.html[/link]
[h1]Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right[/h1]Half of all Americans believe that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, according to [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/03/05/National-Politics/Polling/release_301.xml]a new Washington Post-ABC News poll[/link] in which a large majority also said businesses should not be able to deny serving gays for religious reasons.
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in [link=http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/]Post-ABC polling[/link].
-
Quote from dergon
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in [link=http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/]Post-ABC polling[/link].
Indeed, more and more every day the right wing is revealing itself to be the true moral [i][u]minority[/u][/i], and thank God for that!
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in [link=http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/]Post-ABC polling[/link].
Indeed, more and more every day the right wing is revealing itself to be the true moral [i][u]minority[/u][/i], and thank God for that!
You libs crow a lot, but when all is said and done, no cameras rolling, no microphones to hear them, the[b][u] MAJORITY[/u][/b] of you libs, you lux included, will deny they support this gaiety thing. Homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, unclean, dangerous and a real threat to the traditional family unit. A male and a male cannot have babies. A lesbian and a lesbian also cannot have baby unless they beg, borrow or steal the seed of a liberal male to inseminate the “male” lesbian. That lux is how it works.-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in [link=http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/]Post-ABC polling[/link].
Indeed, more and more every day the right wing is revealing itself to be the true moral [i][u]minority[/u][/i], and thank God for that!
You libs crow a lot, but when all is said and done, no cameras rolling, no microphones to hear them, the[b][u] MAJORITY[/u][/b] of you libs, you lux included, will deny they support this gaiety thing. Homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, unclean, dangerous and a real threat to the traditional family unit. A male and a male cannot have babies. A lesbian and a lesbian also cannot have baby unless they beg, borrow or steal the seed of a liberal male to inseminate the “male” lesbian. That lux is how it works.
You continue to rant but have said [u]nothing[/u] about what is actually immoral, disgusting, unclean, dangerous, and threatening about homosexuality. In truth, everything two gay people do with and to each other are exactly the same things we find many straight people doing with and to each other, so your focal bigotry against gays is totally unfounded. You need to realize that you are expressing nothing but fear, and that fear is dragging you down.
I don’t know what you’re looking for here, but I don’t think you’ll find it among the intelligent, analytical truth seekers at Aunt Minnie. Other than sympathy for traumas that may have happened in your early youth, there’s not much you’ll be able to get from us at this point.
Your fear and/or hatred for a multitude of things going on in the world is pathological and you should discuss it with professionals rather than pushing yourself deeper into your cave with the debates going on in these discussions. This forum is not healthy for you, it is only worsening your affliction. You do not want to hear the truth. You do not want to believe people should be equal. You are not a true caregiver. You are not a truly curious person in search of the truth. This is why you are having such trouble in these discussions.
Go ahead and feel free to continue venting your hate here, but I’m guessing that your comments are going in one eye and out the other with most readers looking in from the sidelines as you push yourself further into the abyss.
-
There you go again soapy, hurting my feelings. For a 11p-7a portable technologist you are one good closet psychiatrist.
-
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in [link=http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-march-2014-politics-obama-and-2014-midterms/855/]Post-ABC polling[/link].
Indeed, more and more every day the right wing is revealing itself to be the true moral [i][u]minority[/u][/i], and thank God for that!
You libs crow a lot, but when all is said and done, no cameras rolling, no microphones to hear them, the[b][u] MAJORITY[/u][/b] of you libs, you lux included, will deny they support this gaiety thing.
Nope. You’re just wrong. This is a true, and seismic shift in public opinion over the last decade, accellerating over the last few years. Americans, not just liberals are truly coming to realize that gay rights is a civil rights issue. It has become a virtuous cycle as more gays come out and wed more people see them and realize that they are just normal people looking for love and companionship like everyone else in the world.
As I have written earlier – In just a couple of decades gay marriage will be accepted that those that who opposed it to the last will be compared to the die hard segregationists as civil rights took hold.
You Point Man get to join Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Jerry Falwell and add yourself to the list of people on the wrong side of history as its arc continues to bend toward equality.-
Quote from dergon
Nope. You’re just wrong. This is a true, and seismic shift in public opinion over the last decade, accellerating over the last few years. Americans, not just liberals are truly coming to realize that gay rights is a civil rights issue.
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.-
My kids & their friends are not so blase’ about gay rights. It’s more than a “live and let live” attitude. They are more in line with thinking the Right wing is just plain nuts always finding issues to get angry about & interfering with people’s lives. It’s much more personal as they know quite a few numbers of gay friends & some who have married.
-
Quote from fw
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.
That may be true for a lot of people, but for me it’s def a civil rights. I am good buddies with several gay professionals. They’re model Americans and have gotten a bum rap from people in power who stopped maturing when they turned 3 years old.
The Right can kick and scratch with its immature bigotry, medieval religion, fear mongering, and paranoid morality, but no one has produced a single tangible reason to justify such discrimination.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Nope. You’re just wrong. This is a true, and seismic shift in public opinion over the last decade, accellerating over the last few years. Americans, not just liberals are truly coming to realize that gay rights is a civil rights issue.
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.
I’m with Dergon it’s a civil rights issue. Denying a group of people rights given to other groups is the very definition of a civil rights issue. Although I am also of the view point that it doesn’t have any bearing on me.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Nope. You’re just wrong. This is a true, and seismic shift in public opinion over the last decade, accellerating over the last few years. Americans, not just liberals are truly coming to realize that gay rights is a civil rights issue.
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.
I’m with Dergon it’s a civil rights issue. Denying a group of people rights given to other groups is the very definition of a civil rights issue. Although I am also of the view point that it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
What’s a “group of people”? However [b]you[/b] choose to define it?
If you’re calling it a civil right then you are saying that gays have more rights than the second wife in a polygamous marriage or more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling.
Should these things be allowed? Be careful, here, you might be a potential “bigot” the way that leftists use the word.
Sad, sad world-
Quote from Cigar
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Nope. You’re just wrong. This is a true, and seismic shift in public opinion over the last decade, accellerating over the last few years. Americans, not just liberals are truly coming to realize that gay rights is a civil rights issue.
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.
I’m with Dergon it’s a civil rights issue. Denying a group of people rights given to other groups is the very definition of a civil rights issue. Although I am also of the view point that it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
What’s a “group of people”? However [b]you[/b] choose to define it?
If you’re calling it a civil right then you are saying that gays have more rights than the second wife in a polygamous marriage or more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling.
Should these things be allowed? Be careful, here, you might be a potential “bigot” the way that leftists use the word.
Sad, sad world
Sorry for butting in on your comment to DICOM, but I want to understand your question. I believe the “group of people” in question refers to the group that’s currently being discriminated against. In this case gays who want to get married. The only people “choosing” to define the group are those who identify the group against which they want to discriminate.
And could you please clarify your comment about the “second wife in a polygamous marriage”? Where in the USA are there polygamous marriages? What are the rights of a second wife in a polygamous marriage and how does that apply to gay rights?
Why are you suggesting that gays have “more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling”? Is there any case in the USA where someone marries the sibling?
I believe polygamy and marrying your sibling is illegal in the USA, and it applies equally across every “group”.
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’m with Dergon it’s a civil rights issue. Denying a group of people rights given to other groups is the very definition of a civil rights issue. Although I am also of the view point that it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
I am not saying that[b][u] I[/u][/b] dont consider it a civil rights issue. I am saying that the ‘tectonic shift’ we have seen on the issue is the result of apathy, not some high minded realization by the masses that it is a civil rights issue.-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’m with Dergon it’s a civil rights issue. Denying a group of people rights given to other groups is the very definition of a civil rights issue. Although I am also of the view point that it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
I am not saying that[b][u] I[/u][/b] dont consider it a civil rights issue. I am saying that the ‘tectonic shift’ we have seen on the issue is the result of apathy, not some high minded realization by the masses that it is a civil rights issue.
I haven’t heard of a single individual that’s apathetic to gay rights. In fact, in recent months it’s become one of the most charged topics in the media and among state legislators.
Where are you seeing all those apathetic shoulder shruggers?
-
-
-
Quote from fw
I dont think it is because people consider it a ‘civil rights issue’. The growing support is the result of people realizing that it makes no difference to their life if gays can serve in the military or get married. It is a big collective shrug of the shoulders, nothing more.
Honestly, I don’t understand your “shrug of the shoulders” comment. What civil rights issue would you characterize as anything more than a “shrug of the shoulders” issue? How does racial equality “make a difference” to you such that it would be more than a “shrug of the shoulders” to give blacks equal rights? How does anyone else’s religion “make a difference” to you that it would be more than a “shrug of the shoulders”?
For that matter, what equal rights issue ever really “made a difference” in the lives of the status quo that really required anything more than a mere “shrug of the shoulders” to give the other guy equal rights?
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
What’s a “group of people”? However [b]you[/b] choose to define it?
If you’re calling it a civil right then you are saying that gays have more rights than the second wife in a polygamous marriage or more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling.
Should these things be allowed? Be careful, here, you might be a potential “bigot” the way that leftists use the word.
Sad, sad world
I’m not sure how you’re construing that I said gays should have more rights than anyone else. They should have the same rights as everyone else which would include legal marriage. Then you back that with garbage like siblings getting hitched, should these things be allowed? Get real.-
[b]”Then you back that with garbage like siblings getting hitched, should these things be allowed? Get real.” [/b]
Hey, it’s no more immoral than this leftist gay thing.
-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”Then you back that with garbage like siblings getting hitched, should these things be allowed? Get real.” [/b]
Hey, it’s no more immoral than this leftist gay thing.
You have no credit as a moral authority. Also gay people wanting to be married is based on reality.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Also gay people wanting to be married is based on reality.
reality AND [u][i]legality[/i][/u]. That’s more than we can say for polygamy and incest.
Don’t you love how someone can take their deep-seated fear, call it “high morality”, and then try to pass it off as proof that they’re somehow holier than thou?
Pointless truly has gone off the deep end; hook, line, and sinker.
-
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Cigar
What’s a “group of people”? However [b]you[/b] choose to define it?
If you’re calling it a civil right then you are saying that gays have more rights than the second wife in a polygamous marriage or more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling.
Should these things be allowed? Be careful, here, you might be a potential “bigot” the way that leftists use the word.
Sad, sad world
I’m not sure how you’re construing that I said gays should have more rights than anyone else. They should have the same rights as everyone else which would include legal marriage. Then you back that with garbage like siblings getting hitched, should these things be allowed? Get real.
Name calling isn’t an argument. What’s wrong with siblings, humans over age 18, getting married?
It’s a serious question and I’m pretty sure I know why you won’t answer it.-
Quote from Cigar
What’s wrong with siblings, humans over age 18, getting married?
It’s a serious question and I’m pretty sure I know why you won’t answer it.Rumor has it, marrying your sibling increases the risk of birth defects. Pretty sure there’s proof of that. Most people would say that imposes a tangible, inhumane hardship on society. And please don’t tell us that two ladies holding hands in public imposes a tangible inhumane hardship on you.
Meanwhile, perhaps a more relevant analogy is the question “What’s wrong with an interracial couple, or a Jew and a Catholic, or a Republican and Democrat…or a gay couple…getting married?”
Answer: Nothing. I think there’s some pretty good proof of that too.
-
Quote from Lux
Rumor has it, marrying your sibling increases the risk of birth defects. Pretty sure there’s proof of that. Most people would say that imposes a tangible, inhumane hardship on society.
During the scotus arguments on DOMA, we were told that marriage is not about having children, or even sex. If it was, we would preclude postmenopausal women and vasectomized men from getting married.
Outside of that children with birth defects thing, there is no societal argument against sibling or first cousin marriage. Easy fix for that, require one of them to get snipped and let them have at it. Makes no difference to my happiness.
Same with polygamy. Our goverment allows and promotes the babymomma system of serial monogamy, why are we giving the mormons and africans who want to step up and marry their bed-companions such a hard time ? No societal interest in restraining them from doing so, right ? Only some old book that tells us otherwise.-
Quote from fw
Outside of that children with birth defects thing, there is no societal argument against sibling or first cousin marriage. Easy fix for that, require one of them to get snipped and let them have at it. [b]Makes no difference to my happiness. [/b]
Same with polygamy.
Only some old book that tells us otherwise.If incest marriage and polygamy “makes no different to your happiness” than I guess we can assume you have no problem with gay marriage either.
And I’m not aware of anything in some old book that tells us incest or polygamy is a bad thing.
However, the LDS Church officially terminated its support of polygamy in 1890 and actually excommunicates those who violate that manifesto, so don’t blame “our government” for that.
-
Quote from Lux
If incest marriage and polygamy “makes no different to your happiness” than I guess we can assume you have no problem with gay marriage either.
And that would be correct. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us 😉-
fw, there are many passages in the Bible that forbid a great many things & prescribe death even for some. Do we really want to adopt ALL the laws created 3,000 years ago by desert dwellers for today without thought on the religious assumption that they all “came from God?”
I don’t think so. I assume you eat shellfish. Pork? I assume you don’t shun women who are “unclean” with their menses, I assume you have no mikveh but I could be wrong. You cut your hair? Tefellin?
How about slavery? “Selling” daughters?
There are a great many things in the Bible we don’t want to subscribe to anymore.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
I guess we can assume you have no problem with gay marriage either.
And that would be correct. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us 😉
I interpret that to be your “shrug of the shoulders” approval of gay marriage, despite your total bastardization of the Bible in your previous post. There is no reason to contrive a required link between the spiritual bond of marriage between two lovers and the ideological mandates of any one religion.
I object to you invoking “some old book” in the context of the gay marriage discussion.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
If incest marriage and polygamy “makes no different to your happiness” than I guess we can assume you have no problem with gay marriage either.
And that would be correct. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us 😉
There was a nice article in the [i]The Economist[/i] on the ways in which the polygamy legal rulings are and are not related to gay marriage cases.
[link=http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/12/gay-marriage-and-polygamy]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/12/gay-marriage-and-polygamy[/link]
Did legalising gay marriage lead to legalising polygamy? There are two answers to that question.
The first, on the legal merits, is a clear no. The court’s ruling cites neither [i]Hollingsworth v Perry[/i] nor [i]United States v Windsor[/i], the two gay-marriage cases the Supreme Court decided in June. It does not mention gay or same-sex marriage anywhere. To the extent that a slippery slope exists at all, it was [link=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102][i]Lawrence v Texas[/i][/link], which struck down Texas’s anti-sodomy law in 2003, not either of the more recent cases, that first shoved marriage down the hill. Before then, the ruling explains, “‘[T]he good order and morals of society’ served as an acceptable basis for a legislature, it was believed, to identify ‘fundamental values’ through a religious or other perceived ethical or moral consensus, enact criminal laws to force compliance with these values, and enforce those laws against a targeted group.” [i]Lawrence[/i] shattered that belief: what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their own business, provided it harms nobody else. Furthermore, the Utah ruling did not strike down a law against bigamy; it struck down a plank of Utah’s anti-polygamy law that barred “religious cohabitation”. States can say one person, one marriage license; they just cannot keep married people from living with others in “personal relationships that they knew would not be legally recognised as marriage.”
The second answer is more subtle. [i]Lawrence[/i], as the Utah court noted, established “a fundamental liberty interest in sexual conduct.” This does not mean that there now exists a positive constitutional right to whatever sexual conduct anyone would like. It means, instead, that if the government wants to regulate sexual conduct that regulation must meet rational-basis reviewit must rationally further some legitimate government interest. Neither Texas’s sodomy law, DOMA, nor Utah’s law banning extra-marital cohabitation did, so they’re gone. The decision striking down religious cohabitation did not follow from the decision striking down DOMA, but they have the same parentage, and that parent ruling says, in effect, stay out of consenting adults’ bedrooms.
I think that as for familial marriage there will likely be a challenge soon. The argument against (that [i]isn’t[/i] based on moarlity is that it risks genetic damage to offspring. However, we already allow non-realted individauls to procreaste even though they are at high (or even certain) risk for genetic mutations in offspring.
German courts are making arguments against that parallel early studies of children of gay marriage … that children of incestuous union are more likely to have psychological problems. If this is truly borne out in good data, it might make the basis of court rulings against. But I would not be surprised to see a successful challenge.
-
Quote from dergon
I think that as for familial marriage there will likely be a challenge soon. The argument against (that [i]isn’t[/i] based on moarlity is that it risks genetic damage to offspring. However, we already allow non-realted individauls to procreaste even though they are at high (or even certain) risk for genetic mutations in offspring.
We already had the goverment get into that business and had agents go out and round up people suffering from [i]feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity[/i] and had them sterilized. Turned out to be not such a great idea. We dont keep people suffering from epilepsy from procreating, dont prohibit couples who had one kid with Tay Sachs from getting pregnant again. The health argument just doesn’t hold much water considering that we have abandoned the other mechanisms that were supposed to insure virtue and healthy offspring (like pre-marital blood testing and health certificates).
German courts are making arguments against that parallel early studies of children of gay marriage … that children of incestuous union are more likely to have psychological problems.
In my experience the children of baptist pastors and psychologists tend to be all screwed up, there is probably evidence to support that as well. We have decided at some point that it is none of the goverments business who wants to get hitched. Heck, if two of the kids from the home for the developmentally disabled want to get together, we even waive requirements that you have to fill out your own marriage license application.
-
Quote from fw
We already had the goverment get into that business and had agents go out and round up people suffering from [i]feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity[/i] and had them sterilized. Turned out to be not such a great idea. We dont keep people suffering from epilepsy from procreating, dont prohibit couples who had one kid with Tay Sachs from getting pregnant again. The health argument just doesn’t hold much water considering that we have abandoned the other mechanisms that were supposed to insure virtue and healthy offspring (like pre-marital blood testing and health certificates).
[link=http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-]http://cbhd.org/content/f…-cooperation-national-[/link]When she was 20 years old, a Native American woman underwent a total hysterectomy by an Indian Health Service (IHS) physician for unconvincing indications.[link=http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-#_edn2][ii][/link] Her experience came to light when she visited Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, a physician of Native American heritage in the 1970s. Two other young women in Montana needed appendectomies and also received incidental tubal ligations.
What may be the most disturbing aspect of the investigations followed: [i]it was physicians and healthcare professionals in the IHS who coerced these women[/i]. It was they who abandoned their professional responsibility to protect the vulnerable through appropriate, non-eugenic indications for surgery and informed consent prior to the procedures.
[link]http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/[/link]
[link=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization]http://www.businessweek.c…r-forced-sterilization[/link]
-
Quote from Frumious
[link=http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-]http://cbhd.org/content/f…-cooperation-national-[/link]
[link=http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/]http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/[/link]
[link=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization]http://www.businessweek.c…r-forced-sterilization[/link]
Thanks for posting all those links in support of my argument. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
[link=http://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-]http://cbhd.org/content/f…-cooperation-national-[/link]
[link=http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/]http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/[/link]
[link=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization]http://www.businessweek.c…r-forced-sterilization[/link]Thanks for posting all those links in support of my argument.
You’re welcome, I think. Did you assume I would disagree with your assertion?
But it’s much more complicated than just your assertion that “government” did those things. Poor and minorities and indigenous people have long been victims of racist and eugenic government policies, State & Federal done with the permission and sometimes at the direction of the majority of citizens, here and in other countries, including forced removal of children done in order to destroy cultures and medical experimentation, such as the Tuskegee “experiment.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Cigar
What’s a “group of people”? However [b]you[/b] choose to define it?
If you’re calling it a civil right then you are saying that gays have more rights than the second wife in a polygamous marriage or more rights than a man or woman who desires to marry his (her) sibling.
Should these things be allowed? Be careful, here, you might be a potential “bigot” the way that leftists use the word.
Sad, sad world
I’m not sure how you’re construing that I said gays should have more rights than anyone else. They should have the same rights as everyone else which would include legal marriage. Then you back that with garbage like siblings getting hitched, should these things be allowed? Get real.
Name calling isn’t an argument. What’s wrong with siblings, humans over age 18, getting married?
It’s a serious question and I’m pretty sure I know why you won’t answer it.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean. You think I’m calling you a name? Someone else already answered the what’s wrong with siblings getting married. Why I won’t answer? Is there some kind of question in there? Or just the absurd idea of sibling marriage.-
The fact is simply, the issue is not about sibling marriage or cousins or minors or goldfish and horses or cats and dogs. They are deliberate distractions. If Cigar wants multiple husbands for a woman, marriage for siblings or minors or “interspecies erotica” (see Clerks 2), he can start a campaign. Otherwise it’s a waste of time.
-
Quote from Frumious
The fact is simply, the issue is not about sibling marriage or cousins or minors or goldfish and horses or cats and dogs. They are deliberate distractions. If Cigar wants multiple husbands for a woman, marriage for siblings or minors or “interspecies erotica” (see Clerks 2), he can start a campaign. Otherwise it’s a waste of time.
You beat me to it.
Cigar and fw, Incest and polygamy have nothing to do with the gay marriage case. This discussion is about gay marriage. let’s stay on point.
-
Quote from Lux
Cigar and fw, Incest and polygamy have nothing to do with the gay marriage case. This discussion is about gay marriage. let’s stay on point.
Oh, it is very much on point, you may not like that fact, but it is. The prohibition against calling a same-sex union ‘marriage’ was based on a interpretation of the new testament. In the rush to get rid of it, we were told that the bible and christian beliefs are some quaint old habit that has no meaning in these modern better times. Anyone who cites his christian beliefs in opposition to use of the term for same-sex unions is derided as some sort of snake handling gun loving extremist. Well, turns out there are a couple of other prohibitions in our life that are based on that quaint old book, by throwing it away, we have given up the high ground. We were told that marriage has nothing to do with having kids and is just a descriptor for two people who like each other and dont want to pay estate tax. So now if others traditionally prohibited from benefitting from marriage want to call themselves married, there really no coherent argument we can make against it.
[i]Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.[/i]
[right][i]Galatians 6: 7-8[/i][/right]
-
-
-
-
All of which supports gay marriage.
Again, there is no tangible, practical reason to forbid gays from getting legally married.
-
Quote from Lux
All of which supports gay marriage.
Again, there is no tangible, practical reason to forbid gays from getting legally married.
Soapy,
you are one confused individual. This fixation on gaiety is getting old. Let it go or realize your dream.-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
All of which supports gay marriage.
Again, there is no tangible, practical reason to forbid gays from getting legally married.
Soapy,
you are one confused individual. This fixation on gaiety is getting old. Let it go or realize your dream.OK, so then you agree there is no tangible, practical reason to forbid gay’s from getting legally married, right Pointless?
-
-
Quote from Lux
All of which supports gay marriage.
Again, there is no tangible, practical reason to forbid gays from getting legally married.
And I didn’t say there was.
Except now we have to allow any two adults who want to enjoy the benefits of marriage to do so (the main benefit is escaping state level estate taxes).-
Quote from fw
Except now we have to allow any two adults who want to enjoy the benefits of marriage to do so (the main benefit is escaping state level estate taxes).
Has anyone actually filed an incest marriage or polygamy suit recently? I’m only aware of LGBT cases.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
Except now we have to allow any two adults who want to enjoy the benefits of marriage to do so (the main benefit is escaping state level estate taxes).
Has anyone actually filed an incest marriage or polygamy suit recently? I’m only aware of LGBT cases.
Utah – plaintiffs won challenge against State’s anti-polygamy law
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-is-weakened.html?_r=0[/link]-
Quote from dergon
Quote from Lux
Has anyone actually filed an incest marriage or polygamy suit recently? I’m only aware of LGBT cases.
Utah – plaintiffs won challenge against State’s anti-polygamy law
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-is-weakened.html?_r=0[/link]
Next round is going to be somalis in Minneapolis. Can’t stand in the way of peoples customs, that would be racist, right ? Also fixes some hangups in immigration law. Stuck in the loop between asylum and permanent residency ? Get married, fix problem.
Just because the group that would want this is small doesn’t mean their claim is legitimate. Back when there was still a debate about gay marriage, we were told that even if there was only two gays in the entire country who want to get married, the legal question under the equal protection clause would be the same.
-
-
-
-
-
Why the political fight over same sex marriage is over, in 1 chart[/h1]
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/10/why-the-political-fight-over-same-sex-marriage-is-over-in-1-chart/]http://www.washingtonpost…ge-is-over-in-1-chart/[/link]
[image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-10-at-11.30.58-AM.png[/image]
Let’s start with the obvious. The fact that seven in ten people aged 18-33 support the idea of allowing gay people to get married suggests that the trend line on the issue overall is headed in a very clear direction. Even if you buy the idea that some of these millennials will get more conservative — on a variety of issues including gay marriage — as they age (and there is some data to suggest that’s not going to happen), it still seems very likely that a majority of millennials will support same sex marriage as they move into their 40s and beyond.
Now, the less obvious. Start in 2004 and chart how support for gay marriage has increased over the last decade across [i]all four generational groups[/i]. Among the silent generation — the oldest living generation — support for same sex marriage has nearly doubled in that time. It’s move upward by nearly 20 percentage points among Baby Boomers and Generation X’ers as well. What does that tell us? That views on gay marriage aren’t solely determined by age. Yes, younger people are more supportive of same sex marriage than members of the silent generation. But there is upward movement in support of gay marriage within each generation as well. That sort of inter-generational movement suggests that the fundamental culture conversation on gay marriage has shifted and isn’t likely to shift back.
Charts like the one above should make one thing very clear: While the cultural war over same sex marriage will likely continue on for some time, the political fight on the issue is effectively over. -
Yes, let’s be done with these idiotic social debates and move-on. We can no longer have legitimate debates about the economy or national defense because each party is coupled to these distractions. The millenials (with the rest of tracking) just might be our saviours as they seem to hold socially liberterian views that may decouple the debate.
If your church doesn’t want to marry homosexuals, fine (I’ll even go so far as to say your church’s tax exempt status should remain in place despite its views on the matter), but there is no legitimate reason for the SECULAR government to deny the rights of homosexuals.-
The reason that politicians and others (like us) with strong ideologies in both parties let themselves get drawn into slugging it out in such a trivial muckfight (e.g., these disucssions) is that they know darn well how naive, impressionable and, in many cases, bigoted, the general public really is. And both sides are fully aware that if one party decided to back away from the discussion based on some lofty, high and might principle of righteousness, the other party would have open season to spread the word to the masses without any rebuttal. I highly doubt either party is willing to give its opponent such a clear advantage.
There is a fundamental contrast between the two sides across most of these social issues:
The Democrats see them as “freedom” issues based on the “concept of equality”.
The Republicans see them as “moral” issues based on the concept of “right and wrong”.
So they both get knotted up like a pretzel in a stalemate. Sometimes it ends up in court and even [i]then[/i] the judges rule the same binary way: they’ll either rule in favor of equality or in favor of right over wrong. Naturally, both parties have a different definition of “right”, and their own concept of what’s “equal”.
-
Quote from NYC
Yes, let’s be done with these idiotic social debates and move-on. We can no longer have legitimate debates about the economy or national defense because each party is coupled to these distractions. The millenials (with the rest of tracking) just might be our saviours as they seem to hold socially liberterian views that may decouple the debate.
If your church doesn’t want to marry homosexuals, fine (I’ll even go so far as to say your church’s tax exempt status should remain in place despite its views on the matter), but there is no legitimate reason for the SECULAR government to deny the rights of homosexuals.
Interesting thought on “decoupling” and “libertarian” millennials . The decoupling will only occur in a significant manner if one side decides to drop the political fight unilaterally. The democrats have no reason to do so since the millennials skew in favor of issues traditionally associated with the democratic party. They are more move secular, more in favor of government activism, social and economic justice, and are pro-environment. These priorities align with the US democratic party and the party will find it irresistible to bring the issues forward in elections to highlight differences.
That leaves the GOP with the option of unilateral capitulation. It will eventually happen on gay marriage. But I wouldn’t expect to see an end to the culture wars on other issues soon. -
Quote from NYC
If your church doesn’t want to marry homosexuals, fine (I’ll even go so far as to say your church’s tax exempt status should remain in place despite its views on the matter), but there is no legitimate reason for the SECULAR government to deny the rights of homosexuals.
That would be fine if the secular goverment wasnt already going around forcing religious individuals and their businesses to support gay marriage. The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from NYC
If your church doesn’t want to marry homosexuals, fine (I’ll even go so far as to say your church’s tax exempt status should remain in place despite its views on the matter), but there is no legitimate reason for the SECULAR government to deny the rights of homosexuals.
That would be fine if the secular goverment wasnt already going around forcing religious individuals and their businesses to support gay marriage. The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
Not surprisingly, I don’t buy the outrage at employers having to provide contraception coverage to employees or business having to equally serve patrons.
It will be an interesting constitutional case though. Whenever two conflicting rights clash with with one another you end up with big conflict and intensity around the court rulings. The Little Sisters of the Poor case will be a good one to watch. Oral arguments come later this month I think.
Precedent I think lies with the government. The court has previous ruled against laws that shifted the burden/expense of one person’s practice of religious freedom to another non-practitioner. The big one is probably the “I can’t work on the Sabbath” argument. the court ruled that an employee’s desire to practice his religion did not supercede the rights of the others around him who would have to bear an undue burden on the other employees.
The current hurdle to meet (unless the Robert’s court changes precedent … which it may well do) is the “Sherbert Test”
The [i]Sherbert[/i] Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual’s right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:
For the individual, the court must determine
[ul][*]whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and[*]whether the government action is a substantial burden on the persons ability to act on that belief. [/ul] If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
[ul][*]that it is acting in furtherance of a “[link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Compelling_state_interest]compelling state interest[/link],” and[*]that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.[/ul] Stay tuned!
-
I was thinking along the lines that you have to operate a business within the governmental law, and not according to religious doctrine. So if the law says you need to provide contraceptive coverage and you have a legal business entity than you need to provide.
-
-
Quote from fw
That would be fine if the secular goverment wasnt already going around forcing religious individuals and their businesses to support gay marriage. The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
No one has to “support” gay marriage or abortions anymore than I supported the Iraq War.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
That would be fine if the secular goverment wasnt already going around forcing religious individuals and their businesses to support gay marriage. The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
No one has to “support” gay marriage or abortions anymore than I supported the Iraq War.
Did the goverment force you to manufacture ammunition in furtherance of the war effort ?
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
That would be fine if the secular goverment wasnt already going around forcing religious individuals and their businesses to support gay marriage. The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
No one has to “support” gay marriage or abortions anymore than I supported the Iraq War.
Did the goverment force you to manufacture ammunition in furtherance of the war effort ?
No. But the government would be well within its rights to [i]tax you[/i] in order to pay for the manufature of of ammunition in furtherance of the war effort.
This above scenario is more akin to the contraceptive mandate than is forced labor. The sisters are not being forced to actually provide the service. But they are being madated to pay for it.
Many people have to fight taxes they find morally objectionable, particularly those for military endeavors. None have won.
-
Quote from fw
Did the goverment force you to manufacture ammunition in furtherance of the war effort ?
???
Does government force anyone into a gay marriage? Or perform abortions?
-
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-republicans-gay-rights-election-2016/]http://www.cnn.com/2015/0…-rights-election-2016/[/link]
[b]
Pence’s struggles illustrate gay rights challenge facing GOP[/b][/h1]
First — everyone should watch the ABC interview that Pence did with Stephanopoulos. He ducks, dodges, and darts. So many times that it’s painful …
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence got five cracks at answering the question that has triggered intense backlash against his state’s new “religious freedom” law.
Each time, the Republican governor and potential 2016 White House contender deflected. He criticized the “avalanche of intolerance” that’s come Indiana’s way. He complained of a “tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding.” He said critics are “trying to make it about one particular issue” — gay rights — when “this is about protecting the religious liberty of people of faith and families of faith.”
Ultimately, Pence offered a defense for religious people who’ve been stung by the outrage, saying: “Tolerance is a two-way street.”
His struggle illustrated the difficulties Republicans could face headed into the 2016 election — pulled between a base that supports “religious freedom” bills like Indiana’s and the broader electorate — in a country increasingly intolerant of politicians who oppose gay rights.
And it highlights the potential for a rift the issue poses for Republicans torn between social conservatives whose support they need and Big Business, a traditional big-money constituency that has broken in a big way with the party when GOP-led statehouses have advanced measures perceived as anti-LGBT.
Indiana’s situation is different. Unlike other states like Illinois, where then-state Sen. Barack Obama supported a similar measure, it doesn’t also have a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while the debates in those states were typically focused on ensuring the rights of minority groups, Indiana’s push was driven by social conservatives who’d just lost a bid to amend a ban on same-sex marriage into the state’s constitution a year earlier.
But the bigger difference is the sea change in voter attitudes toward gay rights — and the reality that many, starting in Indiana, have come to view the push for “religious freedom” bills as a coded rebellion against a flood of legislative actions and judicial decisions legalizing same-sex marriage, with the biggest one yet, from the Supreme Court, expected in June.
The issue isn’t going away, with the Supreme Court’s ruling coming soon.
-
Jeb’s traditional marriage statement may come back to bite as well
-
Someone in Indiana founded the First Church of Cannabis. Under this law they can now smoke up on grounds of religious freedom.
[link=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theindychannel.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2Fpaperwork-filed-with-indiana-secretary-of-state-for-first-church-of-cannabis&ei=3bMZVcy_MomXyQTr2oDADg&usg=AFQjCNFQ2cK55L-4PDcCJ-OkJpDDsI7Frg&sig2=ijlQ3dtOXbUQjTKvCb27Jg&bvm=bv.89381419,d.aWw]https://www.google.com/ur…;bvm=bv.89381419,d.aWw[/link] -
messy Mike…Pence the boycotts have started and now u have loser Cruz supporting you/both of you two won’t get a dime from top GOP money pledgers because bizness trumps everything(look at Jan Brewer she said no to a similar law and yes to Obamacare).
Pence should fire the staff that gave him those talking points/totally sucked in the interviewPence:FIX THIS NOW
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-republicans-gay-rights-election-2016/]http://www.cnn.com/2015/0…-rights-election-2016/[/link]
[b]
Pence’s struggles illustrate gay rights challenge facing GOP[/b]
First — everyone should watch the ABC interview that Pence did with Stephanopoulos. He ducks, dodges, and darts. So many times that it’s painful …Indiana Gov. Mike Pence got five cracks at answering the question that has triggered intense backlash against his state’s new “religious freedom” law.
Each time, the Republican governor and potential 2016 White House contender deflected. He criticized the “avalanche of intolerance” that’s come Indiana’s way. He complained of a “tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding.” He said critics are “trying to make it about one particular issue” — gay rights — when “this is about protecting the religious liberty of people of faith and families of faith.”
Ultimately, Pence offered a defense for religious people who’ve been stung by the outrage, saying: “Tolerance is a two-way street.”
His struggle illustrated the difficulties Republicans could face headed into the 2016 election — pulled between a base that supports “religious freedom” bills like Indiana’s and the broader electorate — in a country increasingly intolerant of politicians who oppose gay rights.
And it highlights the potential for a rift the issue poses for Republicans torn between social conservatives whose support they need and Big Business, a traditional big-money constituency that has broken in a big way with the party when GOP-led statehouses have advanced measures perceived as anti-LGBT.
Indiana’s situation is different. Unlike other states like Illinois, where then-state Sen. Barack Obama supported a similar measure, it doesn’t also have a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while the debates in those states were typically focused on ensuring the rights of minority groups, Indiana’s push was driven by social conservatives who’d just lost a bid to amend a ban on same-sex marriage into the state’s constitution a year earlier.
But the bigger difference is the sea change in voter attitudes toward gay rights — and the reality that many, starting in Indiana, have come to view the push for “religious freedom” bills as a coded rebellion against a flood of legislative actions and judicial decisions legalizing same-sex marriage, with the biggest one yet, from the Supreme Court, expected in June.
The issue isn’t going away, with the Supreme Court’s ruling coming soon.
-
At some point Pence has to realize he’s an idiot. I signed a bill legalizing discrimination based on religion but at the same time he’s saying he would veto it.
“As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.”
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from fw
The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
Somehow I’m thinking all Americans will not be allowed to deduct from their taxes all the lines items for things that go against their own individual and personal morality. And so why the religious organization should be granted that unique privilege escapes me.
-
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
-
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
Kinda’ racist, huh bandersnatch? Now if someone posted “black” rather than “white” you racist libs would have to be resuscitated.
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
Kinda’ racist, huh bandersnatch? Now if someone posted “black” rather than “white” you racist libs would have to be resuscitated.
I don’t know that I’d say racist. It’s probably a somewhat accurate depiction of people that have an issue with gay marriage. Old, Angry, White. I’m not sure older people of color feel the same way about gay people though, I’d suspect maybe not as they also faced civil rights issues. It’s definitely a generational thing.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I don’t know that I’d say racist. It’s probably a somewhat accurate depiction of people that have an issue with gay marriage. Old, Angry, White.
Sure, and that is why old black folks put proposition 8 over the top.
Of course its racist.-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I don’t know that I’d say racist. It’s probably a somewhat accurate depiction of people that have an issue with gay marriage. Old, Angry, White.
Sure, and that is why old black folks put proposition 8 over the top.
Of course its racist.
It’s more of a characterization in my mind. I don’t see what information supports old black folks putting prop 8 over the top. A quick search all I could find was some prominent politicians (old white guys), and religious organizations.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
It’s more of a characterization in my mind. I don’t see what information supports old black folks putting prop 8 over the top.
Sure did. Got the gays all bent out of shape at the time that older religious black folks who had been at the receiving end of violence and racism didn’t see wedding cakes with two dudes on the top as equivalent to their struggle.-
Homophobia hatred is not limited to white people. Maybe only atheists don’t have the excuse to hate gay people?
-
Prop 8 got 70% support in the California african american vote.
It would not have passed without that big vote. The Yes on 8 campaign agressively targeted black churces. Combined with the heavy turnout of the black community that put the bill over the top to passage.
It is no secret that the african american community is the last hold out with sizable opposition to same sex marriage among the traditional democratic constituencies.
But it is also no secret that even the black community’s opinions are changing. Support has gone from the mid 20% range ten years ago to around 50% in 2013.
-
Quote from Frumious
Homophobia hatred is not limited to white people. Maybe only atheists don’t have the excuse to hate gay people?
You dont have to be homophobic to be opposed to calling it ‘marriage’.
Early on in this debate, a number of my gay friends were fighting for civil unions at the state house level. They managed to garner a lot of support at the time, including from the more libertarian side of the republican caucus. They were being villified by the more radical elements in the gay movement who had their mind dead set on pushing through ‘marriage’. Nazi comparisons, angry rants on email listservs (yes, it is that long ago) and attempts to get them booted from local organizations.
Opposition against gay marriage comes from older and more religious folks of all skin colors. To say it comes from ‘angry old white men’ reveals an underlying race based thought pattern that is no better than that of actual angry old white men. -
Civil unions are a 2nd class marriage. Are they the same thing or not, providing the same protections & rights?
No. Therefore they are not the same.
The other problem is the bait and switch of those opposed to gay marriage who said they were for civil union, except when it came time they were not for even civil unions. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
Homophobia hatred is not limited to white people. Maybe only atheists don’t have the excuse to hate gay people?
You dont have to be homophobic to be opposed to calling it ‘marriage’.
As long as heterosexual unions aren’t called “marriage” by the State either that’s fine. Otherwise it is an equal protection violation.
I would be perfectly happy if the government got out of the business of marriage entirely and simply addressed the legal issues around the joining of people in their desired relationship.
Then we could simply leave “marriage” to be determined by the individual churches. Some may wish to consecrate same sex unions and name them “marriage”, others may not. -
Government is involved for the reasons of children, inheritance, responsibility, property, etc. It’s Law.
Maybe we need to get religion out of marriage.
-
Quote from dergon
I would be perfectly happy if the government got out of the business of marriage entirely and simply addressed the legal issues around the joining of people in their desired relationship.
Then we could simply leave “marriage” to be determined by the individual churches. Some may wish to consecrate same sex unions and name them “marriage”, others may not.
That is how it works in the secular european countries. You go to the registrar and he asks whether you understand the legal responsibilities that come with the contract you are entering into. If you affirm, you all sign on the dotted line. A couple of days later you have a weddding at whatever house of worship you chose.
Introducing civil unions was a minor issue, right up there with adjusting the VAT on overly tight jeans. -
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
It’s more of a characterization in my mind. I don’t see what information supports old black folks putting prop 8 over the top.
Sure did. Got the gays all bent out of shape at the time that older religious black folks who had been at the receiving end of violence and racism didn’t see wedding cakes with two dudes on the top as equivalent to their struggle.
Unfortunately, the operating word is “religious”, not “black”[i]or[/i] “white”. This is not a racist argument so stop saying that. It’s an ideological argument about certain religions and morality that preclude equality and freedom.
-
Quote from Lux
Unfortunately, the operating word is “religious”, not “black”[i]or[/i] “white”. This is not a racist argument so stop saying that. It’s an ideological argument about certain religions and morality that preclude equality and freedom.
Why did you then wish death on white men ?
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Unfortunately, the operating word is “religious”, not “black”[i]or[/i] “white”. This is not a racist argument so stop saying that. It’s an ideological argument about certain religions and morality that preclude equality and freedom.
Why did you then wish death on white men ?
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
I’m thinking it’s because that’s where the preponderance of the homophobia appears to reside.
-
Quote from Lux
I’m thinking it’s because that’s where the preponderance of the homophobia appears to reside.
Not sure what you mean with ‘preponderance’. In absolute numbers, you will of course find more older whites opposed to gay marriage than older blacks, but that is simply a function of demographics. In relative terms (as percentages), black and immigrant communities have a higher rate of objection against it. -
Quote from fw
Why did you then wish death on white men ?
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
This is not a wish for white men to die, nor angry white men to die, only looking forward to demographic changes when angry white men will not influence politics anymore to the detriment of the country.
As long as I can remember & became interested in politics in the early 1960’s race played a prominent part. “Whites” and “Colored” signs over entrances, laundromats, swimming pools, etc are not just quaint photos in history books since I once lived in the Jim Crow South. One of the primary reasons I don’t trust your & others curses about “government!” and “government forcing us to…” begins directly due to segregation & the terrorism of the KKK & their white supporters. Yes, government can be evil & Jim Crow is a direct example of that but it took the resources of the larger Federal government to help break that evil. You & Jim Stoessel (for example) just never seem to make a distinction about government when claiming that “government forced things.
In a May 25 FoxBusiness.com blog post, Stossel [link=http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/25/oreilly-tonight-freedom-of-association/]wrote[/link]: “When private companies didn’t segregate – many thought it was bad business — governments forced them to. … That government-enforced racism is why eight out of ten provisions in the Civil Rights Act were so necessary.
But that is the source of sentiments about “government forcing things” on “us” what with “outside agitators,” etc. So Johnson signs the Civil Rights & Voting Rights bills & changed the politics of the South from Democratic to Republican due to the “angry white men” core of the GOP. The “Southern Strategy” and “States Rights” are still core practices & strategies of the GOP since then to today. And the GOP’s viewpoint extends to Hispanics. The GOP core constituency is the same constituency as the Fox News audience, not young & highly intolerant.
Someday this intolerance will be yesterday’s news & that will be something to celebrate.
[attachment=0] -
Quote from Frumious
But that is the source of sentiments about “government forcing things” on “us” what with “outside agitators,” etc. So Johnson signs the Civil Rights & Voting Rights bills & changed the politics of the South from Democratic to Republican due to the “angry white men” core of the GOP.
Johnson didn’t change the politics of the south. The democratic party was the party of gun slinging bible-thumping racists and segregationists. The party on a national level changed, the racists remained the same.
-
Yes exactly, same constituents, angry white men who changed from Southern Democrats to Republican.
-
Two more suits filed today against State same-sex marriage bans.
Both Indiana and Arizona AGs say they will fight the lawsuits.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
Somehow I’m thinking all Americans will not be allowed to deduct from their taxes all the lines items for things that go against their own individual and personal morality. And so why the religious organization should be granted that unique privilege escapes me.
They are not suing about taxes. They are suing about being forced to endorse payment for something they believe to be immoral.
The Obama administration in their haste to get free sterilization for every woman came up with a scheme that if employed by a private party and applied to election law would land him in jail.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
Somehow I’m thinking all Americans will not be allowed to deduct from their taxes all the lines items for things that go against their own individual and personal morality. And so why the religious organization should be granted that unique privilege escapes me.
They are not suing about taxes. They are suing about being forced to endorse payment for something they believe to be immoral.
And those suits about payments for things people find objectionable generally are unsuccessful.
The US government tends to look skeptically on “a la carte” taxation schemes, people being willing to pay for some part of a tax bill and not for another. Still, it is an interesting argument. I am not sure it he Sisters’ case will make the Supreme Court since Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby is already on the docket. Would be interesting to hear the justices’ take on the specifics of the nuns’ suit though.
-
Quote from dergon
And those suits about payments for things people find objectionable generally are unsuccessful.
The US government tends to look skeptically on “a la carte” taxation schemes, people being willing to pay for some part of a tax bill and not for another. Still, it is an interesting argument. I am not sure it he Sisters’ case will make the Supreme Court since Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby is already on the docket. Would be interesting to hear the justices’ take on the specifics of the nuns’ suit though.
They are not suing about taxes and they already have an injunction from one of the scotus justices.
They are suing about being forced to give someone else authorization to pay for abortions.
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
The same governent is trying to force a convent to pay for abortions.
Somehow I’m thinking all Americans will not be allowed to deduct from their taxes all the lines items for things that go against their own individual and personal morality. And so why the religious organization should be granted that unique privilege escapes me.
They are not suing about taxes. They are suing about being forced to endorse payment for something they believe to be immoral.
The Obama administration in their haste to get free sterilization for every woman came up with a scheme that if employed by a private party and applied to election law would land him in jail.
They can’t have it both ways. They’re either in the insurance system or not. If they’re not, then let the transaction be solely between them and the patient and don’t involve the rest of the system. If they’re in, then they must accept the entire shebang. You can’t just pay for the icing and not the cake. If you only want your flock to eat the icing but not the cake, then it’s your responsibility to instill that standard into them. But if you’re unable to indoctrinate them all into your own standards, you can’t blame the government for your own shortcoming.
-
-
The [i]New England Journal of Medicine[/i] steps firmly into the same-sex marriage debate and, from the perspective of being a public health issue, supports same sex unions.
[link]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254[/link]
Public health research has suggested not only that discriminatory environments and bans on same-sex marriage are detrimental to health but also that legalizing same-sex marriage (among other policies expanding protections) contributes to better health for LGBT people. For example, data from Massachusetts[link=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254#ref2]2[/link] and California,[link=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254#ref3]3[/link] respectively, indicate that same-sex marriage led to fewer mental health care visits and expenditures for gay men and that it reduced psychological distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in legally recognized same-sex relationships.
Same-sex marriage also strengthens access to health insurance for the 220,000 children who are being raised by same-sex parents in the United States.[link=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254#ref5]5[/link] Employers who offer health insurance to dependent children often require that minors be related to the employee by birth, legal marriage, or legal adoption, so children with LGBT parents are left with diminished protections in states that deny legal marriages and adoptions to same-sex couples. As a result, children with same-sex parents are less likely than children with married opposite-sex parents to have private health insurance. These disparities diminish when LGBT families live in states with marriage equality or laws supporting adoptions for same-sex parents.[link=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254#ref5]5[/link]
Like other vulnerable populations with limited access to affordable health insurance, LGBT families can find some good news in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The subsidies provided through the new insurance marketplaces will help LGBT families gain coverage, so more same-sex households with family incomes between 138 and 400% of the federal poverty level will now have better options for purchasing private health insurance. The ACA also prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage because of sexual orientation, transgender identity, or preexisting conditions such as HIV infection. However, the law does not require that employers offer equal coverage to same-sex partners and their children in states where same-sex marriage is not legal. Nor does it require states to cover families earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level, so low-income LGBT Americans living in states that are not expanding their Medicaid programs will continue to have limited access to health insurance.
Same-sex marriage, therefore, remains an important health policy issue and relevant to the public policy goal of expanding access to health care through employer-sponsored health plans. Given the partisan divide in Washington, individual states are better positioned to advance protections for LGBT families in 2014. Though public opinion is rapidly evolving toward widespread support of same-sex marriage, not all states are likely to adopt same-sex marriage in the immediate future. Until they do, states could take measures to adopt legislation that protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, and health care.
Achieving marriage equality may require a two-step approach in more conservative states beginning with civil unions that include full spousal rights and protections for LGBT couples, and later transitioning to same-sex marriage. Alternatively, state attorneys general may refuse to defend same-sex marriage bans when they are challenged in federal courts. But regardless of the pathway chosen, I believe that the health benefits associated with same-sex marriage should be considered in the ongoing debates occurring in legislative chambers, election contests, and federal and state courtrooms.
-
Yet another reason “marriage” should only apply to religion and not public law:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-arent-just-fighting-same-sex-marriage-theyre-also-trying-to-stop-divorce/2014/04/11/5f649bd6-bf48-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html?hpid=z2]http://www.washingtonpost…bc3_story.html?hpid=z2[/link]
They now feel the need to legislate “family values”, huh?
I can’t wait to watch all the conservative Keystone Cops bang heads as they all scurry out of that room.
Will it be easier to dissolve a civil union than a marriage?Or perhaps it’s because the Republican divorce rate is actually higher than the Democrats’, and the so-called “family values” party can’t have that at all, right?:
[link=http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_Republicans_vs._Democrats]http://divorce.lovetoknow…ublicans_vs._Democrats[/link]
[link=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126653602]http://www.npr.org/templa….php?storyId=126653602[/link]
So whose family values are they really trying to legislate?
What a bunch of hypocrites.-
Quote from Lux
Yet another reason “marriage” should only apply to religion and not public law:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-arent-just-fighting-same-sex-marriage-theyre-also-trying-to-stop-divorce/2014/04/11/5f649bd6-bf48-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html?hpid=z2]http://www.washingtonpost…bc3_story.html?hpid=z2[/link]
They now feel the need to legislate “family values”, huh?
I can’t wait to watch all the conservative Keystone Cops bang heads as they all scurry out of that room.
Will it be easier to dissolve a civil union than a marriage?Or perhaps it’s because the Republican divorce rate is actually higher than the Democrats’, and the so-called “family values” party can’t have that at all, right?:
[link=http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_Republicans_vs._Democrats]http://divorce.lovetoknow…ublicans_vs._Democrats[/link]
[link=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126653602]http://www.npr.org/templa….php?storyId=126653602[/link]
So whose family values are they really trying to legislate?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Soapy, I see why you are so blinded by the light of the obummer, You read too many liberal rags. Those reports actually show nothing substantial. Where are the hard total numbers? Show me the total deco-crite divorces vs. Republican then we may have an educated discussion. Don’t cherry pick your data. McCain vs. obummer used as an indicator is idiotic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Why the political fight over same sex marriage is over, in 1 chart
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/10/why-the-political-fight-over-same-sex-marriage-is-over-in-1-chart/]http://www.washingtonpost…ge-is-over-in-1-chart/[/link][image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-10-at-11.30.58-AM.png[/image]
I wonder how many times someone ran that graph divying up the ‘generations’ until he got it to look that nice.
The ‘silent generation’ contains 20 1 year cohorts. Over the period from 2004 to 2014, 1/2 of those cohorts got replaced with cohorts from the ‘boomer’ generation. Same for all the other age strata. Yes, there is some change in peoples minds, but for the most part this graph simply demonstrates that young people have a different opinion about this than older ones and that they seem to keep that opinion as they age. -
Some of my best friends are old white men, Pointman.
Only glad to see the angry ones go. They’ve not done the country a service.
-
In the early days it was called “marriage” legally, instead of “civil unions” because the populous all had the same simple idea of what marriage was (i.e., at the time, “marriage” was identical to “civil union”). But as the nation evolved, so did our definitions (which is why the 2nd Amendment now protects more than lead shot balls). It’s similar to how the 1-page menu in My Cousin Vinnie has evolved into the 16-pager at most Greek diners.
Definitions change and the Constitution still must apply as those changes are made so that people still have equal protection.
[image]http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxsr8jjIVt1r3lllro1_1280.png[/image]
-
I don’t care it’s WIKI, the information is not incorrect & provides references.
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/link][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States]Chief Justice[/link] [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren]Earl Warren[/link]’s opinion for the unanimous court held that:
[i][b]Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.[/b]… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/i]
[i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] is discussed in the context of the public debate about [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States]same-sex marriage in the United States[/link].[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-20][20][/link][/sup]
In [i]Hernandez v. Robles[/i] (2006), the majority opinion of the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals]New York Court of Appeals[/link], that state’s highest court, declined to rely on the [i]Loving[/i] case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that “the historical background of [i]Loving[/i] is different from the history underlying this case.”[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-hernandezvrobles-21][21][/link][/sup] In the 2010, federal district court decision in [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger]Perry v. Schwarzenegger[/link][/i], which overturned [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)]California’s Proposition 8[/link] (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker]Vaughn R. Walker[/link] cited [i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] to conclude that “the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender”.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-22][22][/link][/sup] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-23][23][/link][/sup][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-9th-24][24][/link][/sup]
In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in [i]Loving[/i], commenting on the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, Mildred Loving issued a statement in relation to [i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] and its mention in the ongoing court case [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry]Hollingsworth v. Perry[/link][/i]:
[i]I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richards and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. Thats what Loving, and loving, are all about.[/i] In December 2013, the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Utah]United States District Court for the District of Utah[/link] repeatedly cited [i]Loving[/i] in its decision [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_v._Herbert]Kitchen v. Herbert[/link][/i], which held unconstitutional Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. In February 2014, Judge [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenda_L._Wright_Allen]Arenda L. Wright Allen[/link] writing for the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Virginia]United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia[/link] in [i]Bostic v. Rainey[/i], which struck down Virginia’s ban, not only cited [i]Loving[/i], but prefaced her opinion with Mildred Loving’s above-mentioned statement of 2007.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#cite_note-25][25][/link][/sup]
-
-
[link=http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-nn-tennessee-gay-marriage-victory-20140314,0,7641288.story#axzz2w1uLMyd8]http://www.latimes.com/lo…88.story#axzz2w1uLMyd8[/link]
Tenessee goes down swinging.
Judge says gay marriage bans will be a “footnote in history”.
Tennessee has to recognize the same-sex marriages of three couples despite a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman, a federal judge ruled in a lawsuit Friday.
While emphasizing that her preliminary injunction against the state was limited only to the three couples named in the suit, federal Judge Aleta A. Trauger noted that before long, the ban would probably be upended for all same-sex couples in Tennessee.At some point in the future, probably with the aid of further rulings, “in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs’ marriages will be placed on equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and … proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history,” Trauger wrote.
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Frumious
Thank God, Angry White Men are dying off.
Kinda’ racist, huh bandersnatch? Now if someone posted “black” rather than “white” you racist libs would have to be resuscitated.
Racism abounds. Even Jennifer Rubin.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/14/ted-cruz-not-so-popular-back-home/]http://www.washingtonpost…-so-popular-back-home/[/link]
In short, he is a very polarizing figure with a large gender gap. His appeal is limited to white Republicans.
In other words, hes a highly concentrated form of the dilemma facing Republicans. The more he appeals to the base, the less appeal he has to an electoral majority.-
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/michigan-gay-marriage_n_4985957.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…arriage_n_4985957.html[/link]
Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge
Nice to see the flawed Regenerus study openly trashed in court.
Michigan’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage [link=http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Michigangaymarriage.pdf]is unconstitutional[/link], a federal judge ruled Friday in Detroit.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman’s ruling says the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people,” Friedman wrote. “No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. … Regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”
In his ruling, Friedman referred to [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/michigan-gay-marriage-couples-defended_n_4861498.html]testimony from Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld[/link], an expert witness for the plaintiffs.
“The Court finds Rosenfelds testimony to be highly credible and gives it great weight,” he wrote. “His research convincingly shows that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as the children of heterosexual married couples, and that same-sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples.”
The opinion goes on to [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/mark-regnerus-michigan-gay-marriage_n_4904170.html]dismiss the claims of state witness Mark Regnerus[/link], a sociologist and author of a controversial study that found children of parents who had same-sex relationships were worse off. Friedman wrote that the “New Family Structures Study” is “flawed on its face.” Regnerus was [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/mark-regnerus-michigan-gay-marriage_n_4904170.html]denounced by the University of Texas at Austin[/link], where he is an associate professor, the same day that he testified in the Michigan trial.
“The Court finds Regneruss testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” the ruling states.
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/21/michigan_same_sex_marriage_ban_struck_down_along_with_fake_regnerus_research.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…regnerus_research.html[/link]
The ruling marked the 14th consecutive court loss for anti-gay advocates in nine months, adding to an emerging constitutional consensus that gay marriage bans are clearly unconstitutional. But its real significance is broader. The trial laid bare the dishonest strategy that religious conservatives have tested in recent years to battle gay equalityand the courts rebuke is yet another major failure for the forces of anti-modernity.
The [link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/129660276/Mark-Regners-and-Witherspoon-Institute-Collaboration-Report]strategy[/link] is for sociological experts to sow just enough doubt about the wisdom of change such that preserving the status quo seems the only reasonable path. As [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0]the[i]New York Times[/i][/link] recently reported, in 2010 the conservative Heritage Foundation gathered social conservatives consisting of Catholic intellectuals, researchers, activists and funders at a Washington meeting to plot their approach. The idea was for conservative scholars to generate research claiming that gay marriage harms children by placing them in unstable gay homes and by upending marital norms for straights. A solid consensus[b] [/b]of actual scholarshipnot the fixed kind being ginned up at Heritagehas [link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/george_will_on_gay_marriage_the_conservative_columnist_s_rejection_of_the.html]consistently found[/link] that gay parenting does not disadvantage kids, and no research has shown gay marriage having any impact on straight marriage rates. But trafficking in truth was not the plan. The plan was to tap into a sordid history of linking gay people with threatening kids, and to produce skewed research that could be used as talking points to demagogue the public.
The grooming of conservative experts appeared to be falling into place when Michigan called Regnerus and three other witnesses to describe research allegedly showing gay marriage and parenting harms kids. Regnerus [link=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clerk-will-follow-judges-orders-gay-marriage]testified[/link] that, based on his research, he believed we arent anywhere near saying there’s conclusive evidence that children of gay parents fare as well as others, and that, until we get more evidence, we should be skeptical of any such claims. The most prudent thing to do, he [link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/211059750/Day-5-Part-2-of-2-Monday-March-3]concluded[/link], is wait and evaluate some of these changes over time before making any radical moves around marriage.
But on [link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/211060684/Day-6-Part-1-of-3-Tuesday-March-4]cross-examination[/link] by the ACLUs Leslie Cooper, Regnerus testimony quickly broke down. Cooper forced Regnerus to admit that he had sought to conceal the role of conservative funders and of his religious faith in influencing his research, both of which were later [link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/129660276/Mark-Regners-and-Witherspoon-Institute-Collaboration-Report]revealed with smoking gun evidence[/link] from his [link=http://tcc.trnty.edu/alumni/profiles/regnerus/]prior words[/link]. He acknowledged that he was not a fan of same sex marriage before he started his research and that his opposition to it was not primarily based on his research conclusions. And he had to concede that he had singled out gay couples in opposing their right to marry based on alleged family instability: Aware that African-Americans, the poor, step-families and divorced people are all at higher statistical risk of marital collapse and family instability, he nonetheless had no strong opinion on whether those folks should be banned from marryingjust gays, strongly suggesting his views are rooted in bias above all.
After the trial, the state sought to amplify the message that the science on gay parenting is disputed, and caution is in order. Joy Yearout, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General Bill Schuette, [link=http://www.freep.com/article/20140306/NEWS06/303060088/same-sex-trial-federal-court-testimony]said[/link], The trial ended on Dr. Allens comment that the science on this remains unsettled. She [link=http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Judge-Gay-marriage-trial-ruling-within-2-weeks-5296255.php]added[/link], The strongest argument we have is that [voters] decided its best for kids to be raised by a mom and dad. If thats the strongest argument the state has, buckle up for change: The question of optimality in child-rearing is not something voters can decidethats the whole point of bringing in experts on what the research says. As the old adage goes, youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.-
Absolutely LOVE the judge’s excoriation of Regnerus.
-
Quote from Lux
Absolutely LOVE the judge’s excoriation of Regnerus.
The legal arguments take another step forward today. Utah’s ban is the first to go to the federal appeals court.
They base their argument the same way as did Michigan. That the traditional definition of marriage reinforces responsible procreation. And that a substantial body of social science research confirms that children generally fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving, low-conflict marriage.
Looks like it’s back to Regenerus again.
Stay tuned.-
Quote from dergon
They base their argument the same way as did Michigan. That the traditional definition of marriage reinforces responsible procreation.
That may be the “traditional definition”, but unfortunately it’s not been born out by the facts. For example, I highly doubt that the “traditional definition” of marriage includes a pesky provision that only 50% of them survive [i]”until death do us part”. [/i]
In that regard, gay marriage has a far better prognosis.
Let’s not forget that the “traditional definition” of a black man was that he was only 3/4 of a human.
So much for the legal impact of “traditional definition”.
-
I also notice that McAllister campaigned in support of “traditional marriage”:
[link]http://www.mcallisterforcongress.com/issues[/link]
That takes balls and indeed does throw a wrench into how seriously we should treat any expressed love for “traditional definition”.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/ohio-gay-marriage_n_5092084.html?fb_action_ids=10151958118492115&fb_action_types=og.likes]http://www.huffingtonpost…_action_types=og.likes[/link]
A federal judge said Friday that he will strike down Ohio’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a move that stops short of forcing Ohio to perform same-sex weddings but will make the state recognize gay couples legally wed elsewhere.
Judge Timothy Black announced his intentions in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.
“I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio’s recognition bans, that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex couples validly entered in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Black said. “(They’re) denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married.”
The civil rights attorneys who filed the February lawsuit did not ask Black to order the state to perform gay marriages, and he did not say he would do so.
The Cincinnati-based legal team asked Black to declare that Ohio’s gay marriage ban is “facially unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable,” and indicated that following such a ruling, the window would be open for additional litigation seeking to force the state to allow gay couples to marry in Ohio.
Attorneys for the state argued that it’s Ohio’s sole province to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that the statewide gay marriage ban doesn’t violate any fundamental rights, and that attorneys improperly expanded their originally narrow lawsuit.
“Ohio has made its own decision regarding marriage, deciding to preserve the traditional definition,” state’s attorneys argued in court filings ahead of Friday’s hearing.
They argued that prohibiting the state from enforcing its marriage ban would “disregard the will of Ohio voters, and undercut the democratic process.”
He didn’t say why he made the announcement on his ruling before he issues it. But by stating his intention ahead of his ruling, Black gave time for the state to prepare an appeal that can be filed as soon as he does.
-
Ohio makes no sense. What “rights” issue was ever determined by popular vote? If we relied on popular vote to determine rights, slavery would still be legal, interracial marriage would still be illegal, and women would not be allowed in the workplace (or on a beach in anything less than a jumpsuit), and most certainly would not be entitled to equal pay for equal work.
The Ohio legislature continues to ridicule themselves with their medieval notions.
-
-
Somehow I think the GOP would disagree with you, considering McCain and Romney were two of their funding picks and most Republicans thought they would win – in fact McCain might have one if he didn’t pick Sarah, and Romney definitely would’ve won if he had just run as a moderate and campaigned that Obama stole his healthcare plan and put his own name on it.
But we’re talking traditional red states too, not just 2008/2012. There is no analysis that would tally the other way. You’re just trying to corner the discussion into an unknowable metric, just like you extremists always do when you’ve lost the point.
Apparently, Republicans have as much trouble holding onto their election as they do holding onto their marriage.
-
Quote from Lux
Somehow I think the GOP would disagree with you, considering McCain and Romney were two of their funding picks and most Republicans thought they would win – in fact McCain might have one if he didn’t pick Sarah, and Romney definitely would’ve won if he had just run as a moderate and campaigned that Obama stole his healthcare plan and put his own name on it.
But we’re talking traditional red states too, not just 2008/2012. There is no analysis that would tally the other way. You’re just trying to corner the discussion into an unknowable metric, just like you extremists always do when you’ve lost the point.
Apparently, Republicans have as much trouble holding onto their election as they do holding onto their marriage.
As Sgt. Friday (Jack Webb) would have said, “Just the facts Mr. Lux”. You can’t say that Republicans have the greater divorce rate, now can you? No more fuzzy facts!!-
You obviously can’t read.
And don’t EVER try to lecture anyone else about facts.
-
Quote from Lux
You obviously can’t read.
And don’t EVER try to lecture anyone else about facts.
OK, Captain Oblivious, don’t you [style=”color: #800000;”][b]EVER[/b][/style] try to imply that Conservatives have a higher divorce rate than demo-crites. You are so simple it hurts to even view your inane posts.-
I implied nothing. I stated clearly.
Why do you persist in such denial?
-
Quote from Lux
I implied nothing. I stated clearly.
Why do you persist in such denial?[b]”Apparently, Republicans have as much trouble holding onto their election as they do holding onto their marriage.”[/b]
Selective memory?? That is not an implication??
-
[i]”Or perhaps it’s because the Republican divorce rate is actually higher than the Democrats’, and the so-called “family values” party can’t have that at all, right?”[/i]
I consider that to be a pretty clear allegation, not implication.
Perhaps you need a dictionary, or a lesson in reading comp? (now [i][u]that[/u][/i] is an implication).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Utah case going to appeals court on the 47th anniversary of Loving. Fitting
[link=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57702729-78/marriage-loving-utah-sex.html.csp]http://www.sltrib.com/slt…ving-utah-sex.html.csp[/link]
[b]Gay marriage fight recalls 60s mixed-race debate —
10th Circuit Court heard Utahs same-sex marriage case on the anniversary of landmark 1967 hearing on mixed-race marriages.[/b]
…
..from its inception, the Loving case was framed not around gender but race, and in language and principles that parallel those used today in the same-sex marriage debate: procreation, whats best for children, whats natural and traditional and whats in keeping with Gods will.
Richard Perry Loving, who was white, and Mildred Jeter, who was black, traveled to Washington, D.C. , in 1958 to marry because doing so was illegal in their home state of Virginia. They were later arrested at their home, jailed and subsequently pleaded guilty to violating the states “Racial Integrity Act of 1924.”
[b]An excerpt from the trial judges ruling is infamous for its plain expression of the public and state interest behind the act: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” [/b]
Virginia argued that its law was valid because it treated both whites and blacks equally under the law much as Utah argues that its marriage prohibition applies equally to gays and lesbians.
[b]Another key claim in the case revolved around the “scientific evidence” that then purported to show interracial marriage would lead to a “mongrel race” and harm offspring of both white and of mixed-race parents.
“The state has a natural and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages that lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not,” McIlwaine told the Supreme Court, according to an audio excerpt of the hearing included in the documentary. “It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho/sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems.” [/b]
Then, as now, claims were made that expanding marital rights would upset the social order and lead to social chaos, the clinic said. Interracial relationships were described as unnatural and “contrary to Gods will.” Such relationships were bluntly sexualized through use of coded language about sexual taboos which the clinic said is repeated today in references to “adult-centric” lifestyles.
“Without acknowledging the racial provenance of these discredited arguments, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples as a threat to American society, American families, heterosexual marriage, and children,” it said. “None of these statements is remotely true.”
The arguments against were invalid for Loving and they are equally invalid today.
-
Well I, for one, predict that just as the 1924 ruling seems so medieval to us now, so will today’s conservative phobias be viewed with disdain and embarrassment in future generations.
-
Quote from Lux
Well I, for one, predict that just as the 1924 ruling seems so medieval to us now, so will today’s conservative phobias be viewed with disdain and embarrassment in future generations.
The only embarrassment is you disillusioned lemming libs and your gaiety movement. Or may I say obsession with this unnatural sexual experiment.-
Quote from Point Man
…unnatural sexual experiment.
How is it “unnatural”?
Do you think it’s chemically induced?
Is driving unnatural, since we use a vehicle which does not grow in “nature”?
How about flying?
Maybe you think it’s unnatural to perform medicine unless every drug, surgical instrument, and diagnostic tool is found in “nature”.
The truth is, if it happens in this universe, then it’s happening in “nature”, so what’s “unnatural” about it?
Now, you can certainly say it’s “abnormal” since it happens to a small minority of people. But then being a physician is “abnormal”. So is being a black Jewish Republican comedian.
Do you want to outlaw all that is abnormal now?
By the way, based on your posts at Aunt Minnie, you are most certainly abnormal.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
Quote from Point Man
The only embarrassment is you disillusioned lemming libs and your gaiety movement. Or may I say obsession with this [b]unnatural[/b] sexual experiment.
Well, come on, Pointless.
Is it simply because it’s practiced by a minority of citizens?
Is it because they do something you don’t like?
Come on and tell us why you think it’s “[b]unnatural[/b]”. Belly up and explain that infantile statement.
( [link]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865[/link] )
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
The only embarrassment is you disillusioned lemming libs and your gaiety movement. Or may I say obsession with this [b]unnatural[/b] sexual experiment.
Well, come on, Pointless.
Is it simply because it’s practiced by a minority of citizens?
Is it because they do something you don’t like?
Come on and tell us why you think it’s “[b]unnatural[/b]”. Belly up and explain that infantile statement.( [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865[/link] )
Well for starters soapy, I am a moral Conservative Christian, and know it is a sin. What is more sinful is having to be subjected to the fat rosie odonnells, ellens and limp wristed bruces of the world. I am amazed at your fascination with this immoral and disgusting sexual deviation, but….-
Point Man, as a “moral Conservative Christian” it is certainly your individual right to oppose (and, as you love to do,repeatedly denigrate) homosexuals.
But that is not the issue. The “sin” doesn’t matter. Hell man, only 3 out of 10 of the Commandments are illegal… rightly so.
The issue is whether the [i]government[/i] can do the same thing. The answer, as the moral arc of history bends toward justice, is … wait for it … [b]NO[/b]. -
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
The only embarrassment is you disillusioned lemming libs and your gaiety movement. Or may I say obsession with this [b]unnatural[/b] sexual experiment.
Well, come on, Pointless.
Is it simply because it’s practiced by a minority of citizens?
Is it because they do something you don’t like?
Come on and tell us why you think it’s “[b]unnatural[/b]”. Belly up and explain that infantile statement.( [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865[/link] )
Well for starters soapy, I am a moral Conservative Christian, and know it is a sin. What is more sinful is having to be subjected to the fat rosie odonnells, ellens and limp wristed bruces of the world. I am amazed at your fascination with this immoral and disgusting sexual deviation, but….
Don’t you dare lecture me about morality. And how dare you hide behind Christianity as your cowardly shield as you sling your medieval mud at good, law abiding, tax paying people. You referred to it as “unnatural” behavior and I want to know why. What is your “conservative moral” definition of the word “unnatural”?
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
The only embarrassment is you disillusioned lemming libs and your gaiety movement. Or may I say obsession with this [b]unnatural[/b] sexual experiment.
Well, come on, Pointless.
Is it simply because it’s practiced by a minority of citizens?
Is it because they do something you don’t like?
Come on and tell us why you think it’s “[b]unnatural[/b]”. Belly up and explain that infantile statement.( [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/fb.ashx?m=421865[/link] )
Well for starters soapy, I am a moral Conservative Christian, and know it is a sin. What is more sinful is having to be subjected to the fat rosie odonnells, ellens and limp wristed bruces of the world. I am amazed at your fascination with this immoral and disgusting sexual deviation, but….
Don’t you dare lecture me about morality. And how dare you hide behind Christianity as your cowardly shield as you sling your medieval mud at good, law abiding, tax paying people. You referred to it as “unnatural” behavior and I want to know why. What is your “conservative moral” definition of the word “unnatural”?
Soapy, don’t go getting your panties all in a wad!! The anatomy soapy, the anatomy. Boy and boy, girl and girl, just doesn’t work. Physically impossible. Besides butch birkenstocks and gay sandals are disgusting. Feet are so ugly – they are made to walk on, not display. “good, law abiding, tax paying people” How do you know that? Gays are liberal; therefore, they pay NO taxes. I don’t believe I have ever seen a Conservative gay. Don’t believe there is such an animal.-
Quote from Point Man
Soapy, don’t go getting your panties all in a wad!! The anatomy soapy, the anatomy. Boy and boy, girl and girl, just doesn’t work. Physically impossible. Besides butch birkenstocks and gay sandals are disgusting. Feet are so ugly – they are made to walk on, not display. “good, law abiding, tax paying people” How do you know that? Gays are liberal; therefore, they pay NO taxes. I don’t believe I have ever seen a Conservative gay. Don’t believe there is such an animal.
You are indeed damaged goods, sir.
-
[link=http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/]http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/[/link]
New data shows that U.S. divorce rates are higher in Southern states such as Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas. This information is important to church leaders since these states are located in what is traditionally known as the “Bible Belt.” However, these same leaders squabble over whether or not Christians are truly part of America’s growing divorce problem.
Data from the U.S. Census shows the divorce rate among both men and women in the South hovers over the national average. In the South, the divorce rate is 10.2 divorces per 1,000 men aged 15 or older and 11.1 divorces per 1,000 women.
The national divorce rate rests at 9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women. The Northeast region boasts the lowest divorce rate at 7.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 7.5 per women. But the region also has the lowest number of marriage as well.-
Quote from Thor
[link=http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/]http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/[/link]
New data shows that U.S. divorce rates are higher in Southern states such as Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas. This information is important to church leaders since these states are located in what is traditionally known as the “Bible Belt.” However, these same leaders squabble over whether or not Christians are truly part of America’s growing divorce problem.
Data from the U.S. Census shows the divorce rate among both men and women in the South hovers over the national average. In the South, the divorce rate is 10.2 divorces per 1,000 men aged 15 or older and 11.1 divorces per 1,000 women.
The national divorce rate rests at 9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women. The Northeast region boasts the lowest divorce rate at 7.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 7.5 per women. But the region also has the lowest number of marriage as well.Comparing the divorce rate to the total number of people in each state is bogus. It should be compared to the number of [u]marriages[/u] per state.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Thor
[link=http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/]http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/[/link]
New data shows that U.S. divorce rates are higher in Southern states such as Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas. This information is important to church leaders since these states are located in what is traditionally known as the “Bible Belt.” However, these same leaders squabble over whether or not Christians are truly part of America’s growing divorce problem.
Data from the U.S. Census shows the divorce rate among both men and women in the South hovers over the national average. In the South, the divorce rate is 10.2 divorces per 1,000 men aged 15 or older and 11.1 divorces per 1,000 women.
The national divorce rate rests at 9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women. The Northeast region boasts the lowest divorce rate at 7.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 7.5 per women. But the region also has the lowest number of marriage as well.Comparing the divorce rate to the total number of people in each state is bogus. It should be compared to the number of [u]marriages[/u] per state.
Can’t do that soapy!! The majority of the demo-crite base is either gay/lesbian or common law; therefore, the numbers are skewed. Next argument, please!!! -
My comment actually supported you by challenging the statistic that Republicans can’t hold onto their marriage as well as Democrats, but your ignorant right wing ideology doesn’t even let you see when people are giving you the benefit of the doubt!
Damaged and Pointless. Hands down.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
