Going with a ScotusBlog report, since they are fairly non-subjective:
First Monday surprise on same-sex marriage: In Plain English In June 2013, in United States v. Windsor, a divided Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which until then had defined “marriage” – for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs – as a union between a man and a woman. The Court’s five-to-four decision meant that same-sex couples who had been married in states where same-sex unions were permitted would have the same right as opposite-sex couples to, for example, file joint federal tax returns.
But on the same day, the Court sidestepped a ruling on whether the Constitution includes a right to marry someone of the same sex. Also by a vote of five to four, it ruled instead that supporters of California’s ban on same-sex marriage did not have a right to defend the ban on appeal when state officials had chosen not to do so. Within days, same-sex marriages resumed in California.
We all assumed that the issue would be back again at the Court before too long, and that expectation only increased as lower federal courts around the country started to rely on the Court’s decision in Windsor to strike down other states’ bans on same-sex marriage – in Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Wisconsin. All told, by last Monday the Court had before it seven different petitions asking the Court to weigh in on whether states can prohibit same-sex marriage. With all of the parties on both sides in all of the cases in agreement that the Supreme Court should take up the question, review seemed inevitable.
Until this morning at 9:30, when the Court turned down all seven of the petitions, without comment. It was an unusually chaotic scene in the Court’s press room even for a big announcement day. The Court reveals which cases it will or will not review in a document known as the “order list.” Today’s order list was particularly long: over eighty pages. The problem for reporters today was that over a third of those pages – roughly thirty pages – were missing from the hard copy that was distributed to them. And the electronic version of the order list, which might have filled in the gaps, was not yet available (or at least very difficult to find) on the Court’s newly revamped website. But eventually it became clear that the same-sex marriage petitions had been denied, and the analysis kicked in: why did the Court decide to turn down all seven petitions, and what does this mean going forward?
On the first question – why did the Court decide to deny review, when it had granted review in the Proposition 8 case less than two years ago? – all we can do is speculate. Although the Justices do sometimes write short opinions to explain why they are not reviewing a particular case (or why they think the Court should have reviewed the case), they don’t have to, and no one opted to do so today. A few weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suggested that the Court might pass on the cases this time around because all of the federal appeals courts that have considered the issue so far have struck down state bans, eliminating any need for the Court to step in to resolve disagreements among the lower courts (a factor that the Court often considers in deciding whether to grant review). But that probably isn’t the whole story. After all, the Justices often take cases even though there is no division among the lower courts because at least four of them (the number needed to grant review) think that there is nonetheless an important issue at stake. (Bush v. Gore comes to mind here.)
Strategy may have also played a role in the decision to deny review. The Court’s four more liberal Justices – Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – may have been content to leave well enough alone, from their perspective. Put another way, they may have preferred to let the tide of decisions striking down state bans continue to flow steadily, rather than risk a broader decision which might turn back that tide altogether.
What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review. Indeed, it was nearly impossible to fathom that they would allow the lower-court decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage to go into effect without a fight, even if (as the conventional wisdom has surmised) they remained concerned about their ability to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy to join them in upholding the bans. But apparently they did, and we may never know the full story until a Justice’s private papers are released, many years from now.
The second question – what happens next – requires less guesswork. The short answer is that same-sex marriage will be legal in the five states whose bans were at issue before the Court. Things are already moving quickly. In Indiana, county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this afternoon, and same-sex marriage ceremonies started in Virginia just after 1 p.m. today.
But today’s orders will have a broader impact as well. Specifically, because the Court let stand the lower court decisions striking down the five bans, those decisions and their reasoning become the law of the land for other states whose federal appeals are heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth (Virginia), Seventh (Indiana and Wisconsin), and Tenth (Utah and Oklahoma) Circuits. This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty.
To be sure, there are four other federal appeals courts that are currently considering challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. A ruling by at least one of them that states can prohibit same-sex marriage would create the kind of disagreement among the lower courts that might spur the Court to grant review. But meanwhile thousands of same-sex marriages are likely to take place in the states where it is now permitted, and public support for those marriages will probably continue to grow. So even if at some later point in time there are four Justices willing to take on the same-sex marriage question, it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Time will tell
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not quite, still lots of ways that it can play out.
Right now, all 30 states affected by the previous ruling have parity. The other 20 states are still up in the air. How this proceeds from here is entirely up to those district courts and how they view the decision by the SCOTUS:
1) If they decide that the refusal to hear the appeal should count as a precedent towards striking down other bans they can continue the current trend of legalizing it district by district. The SCOTUS could still decide to become involved at some later point with one of those cases. The justices might be happy to let everything legalize without them getting their hands dirty, or one group of judges might be hoping to make a decision (pro or con) when the makeup is more favorable at a later time and they want to avoid having a SCOTUS ruling before that.
2) If any of the remaining districts rule that a ban is legal, then it will become a SCOTUS case later.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.
Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".
My biggest beef against him is this subject matter. So much facepalming...
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.
Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".
And when people talk about the GOP they parade Cruz in front of voters and say "is this the kind of person you guys want running the country, because if you vote Republican this is what you get".
If you don't see the damage Cruz does to the GOP then you have not learned your lesson from the 2012 GOP primaries and the general election.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.
Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".
And when people talk about the GOP they parade Cruz in front of voters and say "is this the kind of person you guys want running the country, because if you vote Republican this is what you get".
If you don't see the damage Cruz does to the GOP then you have not learned your lesson from the 2012 GOP primaries and the general election.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.
Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.
Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.
Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".
I will agree that he is not afraid to bring "it"; while simultaneously feeling obligated to point out "it" is the worst part of American politics: conspiracy theorism, pandering, and American-taliban style social mores.
So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a lot of Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!
Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".
I will agree that he is not afraid to bring "it"; while simultaneously feeling obligated to point out "it" is the worst part of American politics: conspiracy theorism, pandering, and American-taliban style social mores.
I'll agree on pandering (which is a strange criticism as all politicians do this).
But "conspiracy theorism" and "American-taliban style social mores"???
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!
Corrected your typo.
The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!
Corrected your typo.
The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.
A lot doesn't necessarily mean a majority. There are a lot of people in jail.
I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.
Additionally, I think any cake purveyor (and any private business, honestly) should be able to make discriminating choices regarding their customers as much as they want. Businesses already do it in 'soft' ways by targetting specific demographics. If you want your business to be predicated on bigotry, you should be afforded the old college try. I'm of the belief that in 2014 those businesses--and by those I mean those based in bigotry--have no shot in hell of being terribly successful, although Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP prove me wrong every day.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only if I'm allowed to throw rotten fruit and veg at them.
Sure, you'd be breaking the law by assaulting them, but that's your choice.
IMO the more likely scenario is that people would picket them and send them a social media Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n until they were forced to close.
I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.
Yes! How dare they, those social media irrational mob rulers! Not allowing someone to break the law just because they are bigots! Shame on them, shame on them for sure!
Just imagine if Rosa Parks had happened in our times, all that it would be needed to change the policy on racial segregation was a social media shitstorm directed at the bus company, none of these "civil rights" nonsense would have been needed...
/sarcasm, just because I'm pretty sure that someone will think that I'm actually supporting these bigots...
cincydooley wrote: I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.
There is so much more ads that actual content on this page that this is physically painful. Figuratively, of course.
Just imagine if Rosa Parks had happened in our times, all that it would be needed to change the policy on racial segregation was a social media shitstorm directed at the bus company, none of these "civil rights" nonsense would have been needed...
Well, the big difference is that this isn't the pre-60s South where the segregation and bigotry was not only acceptable, but it was on full display. I personally think there's a huge world of difference between that and the gay marriage movement today, particularly in regards to forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings they're morally opposed to.
And yes, I know this is where the "well your religion is ignorant and hateful" crowd comes in.
Despite all that, I don't particularly like where we (the US) is headed with all of this, "If you don't share my opinion, I should put you out of business" nonsense, particularly in regards to the wedding cake situation. But, you know, I'm sure there aren't any queer bakers in the great northwest that would have been willing to make their cake.
And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.
cincydooley wrote: I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.
There is so much more ads that actual content on this page that this is physically painful. Figuratively, of course.
Yeah, there really are. Honestly, I typically try to link more liberal media outlets when I link articles because so many people here refuse to acknowledge them if they come from anything more right leaning than HuffPo.
HuffPo? That's essentially the liberal fox news. I'd suggest the washington post, NYT, BBC, or NPR. Much better reporting quality, and not extremely biased.
Co'tor Shas wrote: HuffPo? That's essentially the liberal fox news. I'd suggest the washington post, NYT, BBC, or NPR. Much better reporting quality, and not extremely biased.
That was sort of my point Though I do think it's fun that you think the Washington Post, NPR, and NYT are moderate and unbiased .
Sadly, the BBC and Al-Jazeera USA (surprisingly good!) don't typically cover these types of stories that are unique to the colonies.
I never said they were, I just said they were better.
Honestly, NPR gets a lot of flack and, although it's opinion pieces are generally liberal, it has some of the highest quality reporting out there. That is the point of their existance, reporting that isn't biased by a corperation who gets it's money from corporations paying for add space. NYT has a slight liberal bias, and (IIRC) Washington Post has a slight Conservative one. Really, the so-called "liberal bais" in media can be easily explained by the fact that those who get into news are often liberal, and being a reporter tends to open up knew points of view.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd also add, if it's written by the AP, it's probably good as well.
Co'tor Shas wrote: (IIRC) Washington Post has a slight Conservative one. Really, the so-called "liberal bais" in media can be easily explained by the fact that those who get into news are often liberal, and being a reporter tends to open up knew points of view.
I think the WashPost being slightly conservative (well, its honestly moving more towards libertarian/constitutionalists than anything-yay!) is a relatively new occurrence.
I'd argue that "those that get into the news are often liberal" is more a product of "those that get into the news did the news in college and are relatively young, and being conservative in college makes you fairly unpopular."
cincydooley wrote: And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.
Completely off-topic, but while this is true in this particular case, this is false in the general case. There are monopoly and quasi-monopoly that limits or prevent choice, and it takes some intervention from the state to prevent those occurring too often and having too many bad effects.
cincydooley wrote: Honestly, I typically try to link more liberal media outlets when I link articles because so many people here refuse to acknowledge them if they come from anything more right leaning than HuffPo.
Well, I have no idea about the bias of U.S. media, and I do not care enough to learn them. I just reacted to what was pretty obvious on the page: ads, ads everywhere!
Well, the big difference is that this isn't the pre-60s South where the segregation and bigotry was not only acceptable, but it was on full display. I personally think there's a huge world of difference between that and the gay marriage movement today, particularly in regards to forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings they're morally opposed to.
And yes, I know this is where the "well your religion is ignorant and hateful" crowd comes in.
And I'm pretty sure that all those fine upstanding people back in the 60's had perfectly moral reasons not to allow non-white people to sit wherever they wanted on the buses. That didn't make them any less bigoted.
Also, no, your religion isn't ignorant and hateful so much as some members of your religion are ignorant and hateful and those cake baker people are some of those. Baking a cake for a gay wedding in exchange for money isn't a sin, it has exactly zero impact on your own moral virtue. The only impact it has is if you wan't to push your own moral values on other people and that is a big no no.
Despite all that, I don't particularly like where we (the US) is headed with all of this, "If you don't share my opinion, I should put you out of business" nonsense, particularly in regards to the wedding cake situation. But, you know, I'm sure there aren't any queer bakers in the great northwest that would have been willing to make their cake.
And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.
The beauty of capitalism is also that if you make questionable choices and enough people disagree with you then those choices can make you loose your business, its called bad publicity. What happened in this particular case was pure capitalism in action!
The beauty of capitalism is also that if you make questionable choices and enough people disagree with you then those choices can make you loose your business, its called bad publicity. What happened in this particular case was pure capitalism in action!
Exactly my point.
We shouldn't legislate against it.
Although I'd argue the death threats and truck robbing probably don't fall within the realm of "reasonable actions."
What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review.
I don't get how anyone is confused on this point. They're avoid it because it's clear the tide of history has turned against them. They don't want to vote have to vote against their personal leanings, but also don't want to be solidified has villains in the history books.
cincydooley wrote: I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.
I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.
I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.
cincydooley wrote: I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.
I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.
I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.
I can see that point of view, and while I don't disagree in full, I do in part. I'll try and explain.
I think the marriage ceremony is a spiritual endeavor, where the 'bonding of the soul' is the intent of it. I think this is the case for Catholics to Buddhists to Atheists. And for many, they don't need or want a ceremony to do said bonding. The government, in my opinion, shouldn't be a part of that in any way, shape, or form, any more than it should be a part of confirmations, bat mitzvahs, or shraddhas.
The government should, however, be involved in ensuring that people that couple have equal protection under the law. Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, should have nothing to do with it, and love shouldn't figure into any the equation. I should be able to enter a civil union with a heterosexual friend if I want to, if that's the person I decide I want to share an estate and reap tax benefits with.
In poor summation, the institution of marriage is about love (or so all the Love who you want protest signs tell me), and I don't think the the government should have any say in that, whatsoever.
What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review.
I don't get how anyone is confused on this point. They're avoid it because it's clear the tide of history has turned against them. They don't want to vote have to vote against their personal leanings, but also don't want to be solidified has villains in the history books.
Yes, I think villains, just like the slate of justices that ruled Dred Scott was property.
It's pretty difficult to find a basis for prohibiting marriage between homosexuals that furthers a meaningful purpose of the state enough to justify broaching the 14th amendment.
Not that it has anything to do with the issue at hand but out of curiosity...
Where does the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" clause end and where does discrimination begin? Always wondered where the line on that was
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’
SEN. CRUZ RELEASES STATEMENT ABOUT SUPREME COURT ACTIONS TODAY
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.
“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.
“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.
“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.
“Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”
It's an important distinction to point out that he's NOT advocating an amendment that would add one-man-one-woman to the Constitution, but an amendment simply to leave the matter in the hands of state legislatures.
It's all states rights / 10th amendment-y...
In theory it should appeal to the state legislatures... whose support Cruz needs to get the amendment enacted. He could even roll this into a broader "federalist" campaign demanding more state power at the expense of the feds, as some righties who dream of a new constitutional convention advocate.
However, in practice, this is hogwash... it ain't going nowhere.
It's simply... pandering*.
*whats funny is that the social-cons are hammering Cruz, because if you’re going to go to the trouble of getting a bill through two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the states, why would you settle for a procedural change like that instead of pushing for a substantive change to the law?
*shrug*
He's running for Prez... (and he ain't getting my vote in the primary)... so, all of this noise is a strategic take to build his populist brand. Ultimately, he’ll frame this as a battle against unelected elite judges pulling power out of voters’ hands more so than a battle against gays getting married.
The problem with that is the one I'm using is the normal one. So yeah, that's pretty much what a lot of people against it are trying to do/have tried to do, but ultimately are failing.
So now they go silent, not wanting to be remembered as "The villains".
Frazzled wrote: Hardly. I really wish people would quit with the insanely stupid moral relativism. It shows utter ignorance of things like facts and history.
If it went the other way
*current issue - At worst you'd have to get married in a different state. Las Vegas here you come!
*Dred Scott - they can whip you and your family to death because they're bored today.
Except the state you live in doesn't recognize your marriage and prohibits you from the full rights of a married person... As was the case in my home state.
Is it as bad as owning people as property? Of course not, but it doesn't matter because some still don't have the freedom of you and I, which isn't just in our society.
On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was spectacular.
MrDwhitey wrote: The problem with that is the one I'm using is the normal one. So yeah, that's pretty much what a lot of people against it are trying to do/have tried to do, but ultimately are failing.
So now they go silent, not wanting to be remembered as "The villains".
Er...no. Two apparently alien concepts:
1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?
2. There are actually good legally reasons for denying writ. Saying they want to avoid being called a villain means you don;t believe your own side does, in fact, have valid reasons. I guess I have to ask - why do you hate gay people?
1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?
Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
Frazzled wrote: Hardly. I really wish people would quit with the insanely stupid moral relativism. It shows utter ignorance of things like facts and history.
If it went the other way
*current issue - At worst you'd have to get married in a different state. Las Vegas here you come!
*Dred Scott - they can whip you and your family to death because they're bored today.
Except the state you live in doesn't recognize your marriage and prohibits you from the full rights of a married person... As was the case in my home state.
Is it as bad as owning people as property? Of course not, but it doesn't matter because some still don't have the freedom of you and I, which isn't just in our society.
On a related note, a friend of mine here in Virginia just got married this morning and it was spectacular.
See, now thats reasoned argument, and you'llget no disagreement from me. What kind of cake? Was it good? Can you air mail me some?
Being Episcopal means I can have church approved cake from any type of wedding.
1. People can have differing points of view, especially on the interepretation of the Constitution, without being a "villain." Is this really where policitical discussion has fallen to now? Those who disagree with you are villains?
Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
Two internetz for using "zeitgeist" in a post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Well, people did hold the point of view that blacks are property. You've got that going for you.
Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.
Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.
You're my mentor.
On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.
Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.
You're my mentor.
On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.
Yikes, not only is it not manly, it's also bartender inconsiderate.
But to be fair, I think that about any drink that requires using the blender.
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
2) If any of the remaining districts rule that a ban is legal, then it will become a SCOTUS case later.
The Supreme Court has the ability to rule on issues when a plaintiff disagrees with a lower court ruling, but the matter isn't really forced until two lower courts disagree on very similar situations. I think it was actually quite wise for SCOTUS to not rule in this case, when all the cases before them had been ruled the same way by lower courts. That's the making of a precedent and there's no reason SCOTUS has to intervene. If a momentum is building in one direction, then it's far better to let that percolate at a lower level than to step in and arbitrate before things are hashed out. A good example of judicial restraint, IMHO.
However if we start getting multiple rulings that disagree with the current rulings then the SCOTUS will have to step in to mediate. What we don't know is whether this was a true example of judicial restraint, or if a conservative movement in the court is waiting for conflicting rulings in order to have cover to rule in a more conservative direction. I suspect it's the former, but either is possible.
As for the NPR/media bias thing, remember that one the core tenets of most public media is to "present multiple viewpoints and expressions" this and many other professional journalism statements indicate an openness that is embraced by those on the left. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just think that organizations holding to that fundamental principle will always be seen as further to the left by conservatives who by their very nature (and the definition of "conservative") are less prone to place high value in -and more likely to be suspicious of- new and different points of view.
I'm center and somewhat left, but also slightly to the right of some of the folks on NPR (all a matter of degrees) however, I know that on WBEZ (Chicago public radio) I'm going to get a wider variety of less-filtered viewpoints than I'd get on networks like Fox or it's weak liberal competition MSNBC, which is why I turn to WBEZ. If "liberal" means that a news source gives voice to viewpoints that you don't agree with then that should be a good thing.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!
Corrected your typo.
The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.
I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.
Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.
You're my mentor.
On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.
Son if you put some Appleton rum in that, NOW you have a drink!
Note the "avoiding the villain" argument is knocked back when you say they actually didn't do anything, thus negatively impacting the issue as well (my bold).
Same-sex couples are marrying in at least six more states today, after the Supreme Court left in place lower courts' rulings against bans on gay marriage. But couples have been turned away in Kansas, one of several states that share federal jurisdiction with states where bans were lifted.Legal experts say that federal appeals courts' rulings against same-sex marriage bans in Utah, Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma and Wisconsin now extend to all 11 states in their circuits. But officials in Kansas and Wyoming say no court has ruled specifically against their ban. And in several states, legal challenges to the bans that had been put on hold are being renewed.
Those 11 states are now home to jubilant couples and activists, as well as to people who are sorely disappointed — either because the bans were struck down, or because their legal path to marriage remains blocked.Here's a roundup of the states in question:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.
Our wedding cakes were murderously awesome. I tried to steal mine and run off with it, but I forgot I still had the shock collar on and down I went.
I'd be all for government leaving marriage a purely private affair as long as the parties involved are of age and are willing.
Having your partner or partners entered into a civil union of some sort would be a reasonable equivalent if you wanted some kind of protection under the law for things such as visiting rights to sick family etc
Yep. Barring that its not Government's business so the same standards should apply to government that you put in. That way everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
*translation, no one tell me, so screw them too buahahaha!
I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.
Yeah, ours was pretty amazing as well. So much so that we get a small version of it remade every year for our anniversary.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
Also I think your opinion of the cultural and societal impact of SNL - a comedy show that would have been cancelled 25 years ago if it was in any timeslot other than the least desirable one on TV - might be a bit outsized.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
But thats not what they did....they just ducked the issue entirely, so states that have ruled against you remain against you.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
I don't disagree with that portion, but that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the rest of us.
Yeah, well, they're in a weird ideological place. They can't sack up and admit what they privately disagree with, but it's clear that they can't codify it into law anymore.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
I don't disagree with that portion, but that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the rest of us.
But the only people referred to as villains in this thread were the court?
But the only people referred to as villains in this thread were the court?
Fair enough; I extrapolated it to include the rest of society, because I do believe we're in a place where if you disagree with the Twitter Hipster masses, you're immediately told you're a bigot or racist.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
But thats not what they did....they just ducked the issue entirely, so states that have ruled against you remain against you.
So long as they duck it, they don't have to own anything. The writing is on the wall anyway. Even if the conservatives did take a hard stand they'd only delay things by a few years. It's not a winnable fight and they know it. In 40 years the hardliners on the wrong side of this issue won't be viewed any differently than Bull Connor.
Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.
What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).
Now I know you probably won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.
Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.
What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).
Now I know you won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.
There's plenty of calm and rational going on.
In fact, many times people being apathetic toward a cause are treated as "villains."
I'm staunchly for more equitable male parental rights, and for that I'm often called a misogynist.
I couldn't care less if gays marry, yet because I don't actively support the cause and said I believe people like Phil Robertson are entitled to their opinions, I've been called a homophobe.
Despite knowing (anecdotally) that many of them work harder than many of their poor white and black American counterparts, I think there's far too much illegal immigration in the country and I don't think we should simply grant them all amnesty. For that I've been called a bigot.
You see, it becomes harder and harder and harder to not get defensive when you've got people coming back to your reasonable responses with words like bigot, homophobe, and misogynist.
Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.
What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).
Now I know you probably won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.
Yet SCOTUS were immediately pegged as being villains if they had taken it up...
In fact, many times people being apathetic toward a cause are treated as "villains."
I'm staunchly for more equitable male parental rights, and for that I'm often called a misogynist.
I couldn't care less if gays marry, yet because I don't actively support the cause and said I believe people like Phil Robertson are entitled to their opinions, I've been called a homophobe.
Despite knowing (anecdotally) that many of them work harder than many of their poor white and black American counterparts, I think there's far too much illegal immigration in the country and I don't think we should simply grant them all amnesty. For that I've been called a bigot.
You see, it becomes harder and harder and harder to not get defensive when you've got people coming back to your reasonable responses with words like bigot, homophobe, and misogynist.
Your final line is where I definitely agree with you. But the pendulum swings both ways, you know.
It's hard to not accuse someone of being a bigot when they do and say bigoted things.
Frazzled wrote: Yet SCOTUS were immediately pegged as being villains if they had taken it up...
But they are being pegged as villains by Ted Cruz.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Your final line is where I definitely agree with you. But the pendulum swings both ways, you know.
It's hard to not accuse someone of being a bigot when they do and say bigoted things.
.
And I think that's where we don't quite agree. I think in the past five years the word bigot has been tossed out in tons of abhorrent ways, so much so that we've gotten to a place where you almost be a "bigot by association" or a "bigot by apathy."
I'm not a huge fan of that.
I'll admit to being bigoted against lazy people, though. I'm not ashamed of that at all.
It's why I'm so proud of myself for not getting suspended for commenting in the "I'm a lazy waste of space that just wants to play video games and mooch off my parents" thread.
It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.
I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).
It's really tiring.
And to clarify: yes, I understand that there are areas of my life that have been made easier because I'm white, but those areas have also been made easier because both of my raised in the poverty class with single incomes parents were able to raise themselves into the middle class.
cincydooley wrote: It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.
Can of worms there, cincy, but I agree with you.
Bashing on men, and especially white men, is far too acceptable in our culture. I consider myself extremely liberal, and I am constantly irritated with the attacks that other liberals throw at white males as if generalizing and stereotyping is acceptable only if you are doing at the expense of a (white)guy. Not to make this a left/right thing, as certainly the abuses occur on the other side of the fence as well, but liberals should know better on the basis that they claim to believe in liberty and equality and yet want to marginalize one group while propping up others.
But I am getting flame-bait anxiety even typing this out, so I'll end my post before saying something that will inevitably make me look like an donkey-cave. Perhaps that is too late.
It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.
I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).
It's really tiring.
I'm a white middle class male and I don't find anything exhausting about my life (other than when I work night shift). I guess you and I view the world through a much different lens.
cincydooley wrote: We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.
No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.
So it's kind of like how Feinstein and Co. tried to put together a new assault weapons ban that government officials didn't have to comply with. I get it.
Also, on the subject of wedding cake, my wife and I's cake was actually one of the best cakes I've ever had (completely irrespective of the fact it was our wedding cake - had I eaten it in any other context it would have been just as good). It was an amaretto cake. fething legendary.
It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.
I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).
It's really tiring.
And to clarify: yes, I understand that there are areas of my life that have been made easier because I'm white, but those areas have also been made easier because both of my raised in the poverty class with single incomes parents were able to raise themselves into the middle class.
Poor, poor white male it's so tough for you in the media….
…except you get to turn off the radio/TV/Internet and walk outside where you're a white man where...
-You aren't assumed to be a criminal because of your race.
-You're going to do the same work and make 10-25% more than those with a different chromosome combo.
-If you do get in trouble with the law you'll get a lighter sentence
-You're dramatically less likely to get pulled over for a traffic stop.
-You're name alone is going to make it more likely that you get a job interview and a lease on an apartment.
Get over it. So the media is a little unfair to you sometimes, and some of the things you say are true, but when it comes to the actual living of real life, we white males have got it made.
Not trying to guilt you (not in this thread anyway…), just telling you to quit whining and look on the bright side.
If a decade of living and working almost exclusively in the black community has taught me anything, it's that whatever flack I might take for being a privileged white man (I really haven't felt much flack lately), it s nothing compared to the flak my african american counter part faces in his daily life. There's just No Comparison.
-If you do get in trouble with the law you'll get a lighter sentence
Isn't this more "White Female?" considering general rates, but I know you mean white men get better rates compared to those of ethnicity, so it's true.
-You're going to do the same work and make 10-25% more than those with a different chromosome combo.
Proven through actual studies not to be the case (This has been illegal for decades)
The rest are quite true though, just nitpicking a bit. White males do have better rates when it comes to certain aspects of society that others do not.
While all of those things are true in terms of the big picture of the whole country, and are a problem, many of them can vary widely depending on where you actually live. In practice, socio-economic class is going to have just as big, if not a bigger effect. Of course, African-Americans are more likely statistically to be in a lower socio-economic class, but to white people who are also of low socio-economic status, depending on where they live they will also experience many of those things (more likely to be pulled over, assumed to be a criminal, etc.)
Of course, that certainly doesn't negate the fact that white privilege exists, but I would welcome you to try to explain that to a poor white person and see how far that gets you.
Looks like some states that are actually within the districts that struck down bans are playing hardball and are instructing clerks to not issue licenses because "our state has not had any ruling yet". Apperantly elected officials in those states are not aware of how court rulings work.
It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.
I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).
It's really tiring.
And to clarify: yes, I understand that there are areas of my life that have been made easier because I'm white, but those areas have also been made easier because both of my raised in the poverty class with single incomes parents were able to raise themselves into the middle class.
Poor, poor white male it's so tough for you in the media….
…except you get to turn off the radio/TV/Internet and walk outside where you're a white man where...
-You aren't assumed to be a criminal because of your race.
-You're going to do the same work and make 10-25% more than those with a different chromosome combo.
-If you do get in trouble with the law you'll get a lighter sentence
-You're dramatically less likely to get pulled over for a traffic stop.
-You're name alone is going to make it more likely that you get a job interview and a lease on an apartment.
.
Im also constantly told
;My ideas and opinions dont have merit because im white and a male
:My acheivments are not my own and I somehow passed all my tests because Im white.
:If my gender and race afforded me special privileges, why am I at UCSC and not UC Berkely.....oh wait they let all the asians in first.
Im also constantly told
;My ideas and opinions dont have merit because im white and a male
:My acheivments are not my own and I somehow passed all my tests because Im white.
:If my gender and race afforded me special privileges, why am I at UCSC and not UC Berkely.....oh wait they let all the asians in first.
So what, you're at UCSC! You've achieved and will likely continue do so someone not liking your ideas or opinions shouldn't really be the end of the world. Besides once you get out of the echo chamber of people with overblown opinions that is college, your opinions will carry alot more weight and you can own all your own achievements.
I'm not denying what you said. I'm just saying that when you tally up the goods vs the bads, white folks have it better in almost every measurable quality of life indicator. Also, I'm not trying to pass around guilt. Heaven knows I don't feel guilty for being born white. Why would I? I'm just asking for a little perspective. Take a look outside your situation and instead of whining that some liberal doesn't like your identity, just be thankful for what you have, and maybe do what you can to level the playing field for other folks.
Actually, it was sarcasm responding to what I felt was the most ignorant statement in the thread. A post that implied that the only reason people will get stopped is due to acting like or being criminals, when a specific race statistically gets stopped more? Yeah.
d-usa wrote: Looks like some states that are actually within the districts that struck down bans are playing hardball and are instructing clerks to not issue licenses because "our state has not had any ruling yet". Apperantly elected officials in those states are not aware of how court rulings work.
I think quite a few of them know exactly how it works, they just don't care. Saying "WE REFUSE TO COMPLY UNLESS YOU FORCE US TO" is a futile last stand if you goal is stopping the destruction of society gay marriage, but it's great for reminding the raving lunatics of the religious right that you hate all the same people that they hate Jesus hates and securing their votes when it's time to implement your "tax the poor to make me and my rich friends even richer" schemes.
MrDwhitey wrote: Actually, it was sarcasm responding to what I felt was the most ignorant statement in the thread. A post that implied that the only reason people will get stopped is due to acting like or being criminals, when a specific race statistically gets stopped more? Yeah.
I realize that it was sarcasm. It's still the most ignorant statement in the thread, for a variety of reasons. I agree with your assessment of the previous statement, but you topped it.
If it were taken as what I truly believe, then yes, it would be an ignorant statement to say that blacks should simply stop being thugs and the police would leave them alone. Which is pretty much what he said if you think about it given the simple context of this discussion. It's not helped by the previous assertation that the only reason he didn't get into UC Berkley or whatever is because "They let all the asians in first".
Boiling it down to point it out? I don't see that as being ignorant. The opposite actually. Hopefully by seeing that he might actually realise how fething absurd what he said is considering the discussion.
MrDwhitey wrote: A post that implied that the only reason people will get stopped is due to acting like or being criminals, when a specific race statistically gets stopped more? Yeah.
When it comes to traffic cops, the fast race is the one that gets stopped more
whembly wrote: So that means we can finally put this to rest?
Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.
Not to sound cold but they will be dying off soon and things will start to change a bit easier. But the religious nut jobs who want to force their religion into our laws will always be around. They just wont have as many old people they can scare into voting their way.
People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.
We still get people staring frequently. But hey, that's Oklahoma for you.
You mean at gay couples or interracial couples? Or both?
Let them stare if they want, I suppose. It doesn't necessarily mean they disapprove, they just might not be used to it. And if they do disapprove, who cares? You'll never be able to please everybody.
We still get people staring frequently. But hey, that's Oklahoma for you.
You mean at gay couples or interracial couples? Or both?
Interracial, me and the wife.
Gotcha. That actually surprises me somewhat, given Oklahoma's relatively large Native American population. I'd think people would more used to diversity, in general. But I'm sure someone somewhere would stare in every state.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing. The reason I dont get stopped by the cops is I dont commit crimes or act like im gonna
I was pulled over all the time in LA. Where I lived a white boy (much less a country boy) was a rare sight indeed. They were always thinking I was trolling for drugs.
“I am privileged that values like faith and education were passed along to me.»
He need to check again, he obviously did not make it right the first time. Anyhow, I skimmed through it, and I call bs on saying “My ancestors had it rough, so [anything about me]”. Like, seriously.
I should know, because… I am in the same position as he is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing. The reason I dont get stopped by the cops is I dont commit crimes or act like im gonna
That's a pretty false positive.
As a white kid, you're going to get stopped far less if you're just walking around than if you're a minority kid. Plenty of facts support that, including all the NYC stop and frisk statistics (which I find an abhorrent violation of the 4th amendment). You can't help that, and nor can minorities.
Now, one could argue that minorities get stopped more because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, but it's a pretty circular argument in that minority, and especially black, populations tend to be centered in poorer urban areas, and a great deal of crime is a necessity of the poor and doesn't necessarily fall along racial lines. Your white poor, typically, aren't in tightly packed urban centers, but are often rural.
Like I said before, I won't even argue that sentencing is prejudicial in the US. What I will say is that my "white privilege" has no bearing on me in that situation because I don't commit crimes.
I can't say whether or not my "privilege" has ever benefited me with housing as we've never rented outside of university housing.
@d-usa - blows my mind that people give you weird looks; I can't really fathom that...
cincydooley wrote: I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.
I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.
I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.
This line of thinking bothers me... and always will.
I thought there's a large push to get religion out of government??!?! It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).
So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions). If you want to call it a "marriage" outside of the legal binding document, amongst family/friends/work/church, go for it. Feth what other people think about it.
Won't ever happen as idiots on both sides, imo, want to keep it a hot issue. (see Cruz... he's selfishly submitting that proposal to firm up is pedigree for the republican Prez primaries... but, what he's doing is shifting attention away from things that helps republicans in the midterm).
In regards to the "tarantula" argument: why not simply extend it to two heterosexual males that want to enter into a coupling for the benefits it provides, ala (and I'm embarrassed to cite this) the film "I now pronounce you Chuck & Larry."
Why should that type of coupling be protected any less than any other "union?"
It shouldn't have any less protection. I think that people getting marriage benefits is a little silly, unless all people who live together and rely on each-other like a couple also get those benefits. But it's cultural, so oh well.
whembly wrote: It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).
It really doesn't. As a devout atheist I can go to the local courthouse, sign some paperwork, and be just as married as any religious couple. The fact that certain religious groups have declared that they "own" marriage does not mean that the government needs to respect that demand.
So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions).
The problem with this argument is that there's no reason to change the name, other than satisfying a few obnoxious bigots. I get that it might be a good strategy to get the bigots to vote for you, but I don't see why anyone else should support the idea.
whembly wrote: It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).
It really doesn't. As a devout atheist I can go to the local courthouse, sign some paperwork, and be just as married as any religious couple. The fact that certain religious groups have declared that they "own" marriage does not mean that the government needs to respect that demand.
You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...
I'm talking about a middle ground here.
So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions).
The problem with this argument is that there's no reason to change the name, other than satisfying a few obnoxious bigots. I get that it might be a good strategy to get the bigots to vote for you, but I don't see why anyone else should support the idea.
Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.
So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.
whembly wrote: You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...
I'm talking about a middle ground here.
But why should there be a middle ground? You wouldn't argue for a middle ground between "1+1=2" and "1+1=5", you'd just say that one side is wrong and needs to STFU. Same thing here. The only reason to remove the "marriage" name is to appease the bigots, like if the KKK demanded that we remove the "marriage" title from interracial marriage. So why should anyone care what the bigots have to say about this?
Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.
So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.
whembly wrote: You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...
I'm talking about a middle ground here.
But why should there be a middle ground? You wouldn't argue for a middle ground between "1+1=2" and "1+1=5", you'd just say that one side is wrong and needs to STFU. Same thing here. The only reason to remove the "marriage" name is to appease the bigots, like if the KKK demanded that we remove the "marriage" title from interracial marriage. So why should anyone care what the bigots have to say about this?
Dude... I support gays to marry.
They deserve all the fruits/benefit that society offers to man/woman union.
We're talking about equal protection of the law.
So, when an idea to change the word on a legally binding document is floated out there as a middle ground... oh no... that's like "if we can't have it, the NO ONE CAN!"... is simply asinine, in my opinion.
However, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell for that to occur, because both sides want to use this as hammer.
Also, for what it's worth, the straight marriages have already ruined the institution. Just look at the divorce rates.
Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.
So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.
And that is absolutely insane.
Both sides are absolutely militaristic on their viewpoints.
The ones where you say to remove the name marriage or something?
About both sides having militaristic viewpoints, when one side is 1+1 = 2, and the other is 1+1 = 3, I don't give a gak how militaristic the 1+1=2 side is, they're still right. feth the other side and feth them hard.
The ones where you say to remove the name marriage or something?
About both sides having militaristic viewpoints, when one side is 1+1 = 2, and the other is 1+1 = 3, I don't give a gak how militaristic the 1+1=2 side is, they're still right. feth the other side and feth them hard.
It would if one side wasn't insane bigoted nut jobs.
As Mel has said a lot in her posting, being centrist for centrists sake is not a good thing. Not all issues are solved in the middle (many are though), because in some cases one side is literally completely wrong.
whembly wrote: So, when an idea to change the word on a legally binding document is floated out there as a middle ground... oh no... that's like "if we can't have it, the NO ONE CAN!"... is simply asinine, in my opinion.
Again, why do we NEED a middle ground? If the KKK said "hey, let's have a middle ground between ending discrimination and lynching any black people who don't know their place" and proposed that we go back to segregation would you argue that we should take the middle ground just to spite the extremists on both sides? If not, why would you make the same argument in the case of gay marriage?
Both sides are absolutely militaristic on their viewpoints.
Since when does "militaristic" have anything to do with what the right decision is? If there's an argument about 1+1=2 vs. 1+1=5 it's a safe bet that the 1+1=2 side will be pretty militaristic about their position. And why shouldn't they be? They're indisputably right. Same thing with gay marriage. This is a case of an inevitable process which will end in gay marriage existing everywhere, opposed only by a dying generation of obnoxious bigots whose relevance in politics is quickly ending.
MrDwhitey wrote: It would if one side wasn't insane bigoted nut jobs.
As Mel has said a lot in her posting, being centrist for centrists sake is not a good thing. Not all issues are solved in the middle, because in many cases one side is literally completely wrong.
There's two things as I see it...
One: It's a legally binding contracts that grants two people certain recognition and rights by the State.
Two: Cetain religion (Catholic, LDS, Islam, etc...)would never accept that the 'sacrament of marriage' could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than that Big Guy™. This is neither homophobic, nor does it undermine gay couple's happiness.
So, how do you ensure you decouple points one and two?
Peregrine wrote: This is a case of an inevitable process which will end in gay marriage existing everywhere, opposed only by a dying generation of obnoxious bigots whose relevance in politics is quickly ending.
I certainly hope that's the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Tell them to grow the feth up and stop interfering.
It isn't. Remember that thing about separation of church and state? That means that the government shouldn't pay any attention when certain religious groups demand ownership of secular concepts like marriage.
It isn't. Remember that thing about separation of church and state? That means that the government shouldn't pay any attention when certain religious groups demand ownership of secular concepts like marriage.
Yeah, I get that.
But, to those groups, "marriage" is more than a secular concept. Hence, why I advocated have the State change it to Civil Union.
A) Everyone can get that and enjoy equal protection of the law
B) If the religious folks complain, tell them by saying they're not "married" by the tenets of their religion and STFU.
whembly wrote: But, to those groups, "marriage" is more than a secular concept.
What's your point? Separation of church and state means that their opinion doesn't matter. Marriage is a secular concept, and the government should not pay any attention to their demands for ownership of it.
They have every right to say it.
Just like you and I have every right to tell them to STFU.
Then why aren't you applying the same standard to religious opposition to gay marriage? Why don't you argue that they have every right to say they own "marriage", but nobody has to listen to them? What makes their demands more reasonable than the hypothetical KKK demand?
whembly wrote: But, to those groups, "marriage" is more than a secular concept.
What's your point? Separation of church and state means that their opinion doesn't matter. Marriage is a secular concept, and the government should not pay any attention to their demands for ownership of it.
You see... it isn't codified into law.
They have every right to say it.
Just like you and I have every right to tell them to STFU.
Then why aren't you applying the same standard to religious opposition to gay marriage? Why don't you argue that they have every right to say they own "marriage", but nobody has to listen to them? What makes their demands more reasonable than the hypothetical KKK demand?
Frazzled wrote: Eliminate marriage as a governmental contract. Then everyone can do whatever the heck they want.
This is very bad unless you're a lawyer who needs some extra work. Right now marriage as a legal contract does a very good job of standardizing the various benefits and responsibilities involved in joining two people into a single unit. If you remove that government standardization you force every couple to create their own contracts, every insurance company to have to figure out which private contracts (if any) should be recognized, every court involved in a child custody dispute to have to figure out how to handle whatever private contract the people involved came up with, etc. And all of the lawyers involved cost money, money that currently doesn't have to be spent.
And what do we gain in return for this massive increase in legal bills? The ability to protect a few bigots from having their precious feelings hurt by letting someone else do something they don't approve of.
It isn't, but there is overwhelming legal precedent that it exists.
Simple.
How many voters are there?
What does that have to do with anything? Your argument was that we need to show tolerance for all positions, and find the middle ground between all of the extremists.
Frazzled wrote: Eliminate marriage as a governmental contract. Then everyone can do whatever the heck they want.
This is very bad unless you're a lawyer who needs some extra work. Right now marriage as a legal contract does a very good job of standardizing the various benefits and responsibilities involved in joining two people into a single unit. If you remove that government standardization you force every couple to create their own contracts, every insurance company to have to figure out which private contracts (if any) should be recognized, every court involved in a child custody dispute to have to figure out how to handle whatever private contract the people involved came up with, etc. And all of the lawyers involved cost money, money that currently doesn't have to be spent.
And what do we gain in return for this massive increase in legal bills? The ability to protect a few bigots from having their precious feelings hurt by letting someone else do something they don't approve of.
Not at all. Its happening all the time with unmarried couples. Alternatively the state can create a "civil compact" that anyone can sign onto who is of legal age and consenting. All those rights and duties are granted (once you pay the tax . Anyone can call themselves married. Thats up to them.
The rhetoric in here is getting way too shrill and flamebaity. Please keep it light folks or head to some other forum where political bickering is the point.
Manchu wrote: The rhetoric in here is getting way too shrill and flamebaity. Please keep it light folks or head to some other forum where political bickering is the point.
Yea jive turkeys. Don't be hatin yo. this thread needs to get back on topic - wedding cakes!
@Peregrine - I think the argument can be made that in the United States marriage has never been perceived as a secular institution, regardless of it's history.
I personally don't care who marries whom. It isn't my business who you want to live with or feth or love (and quite frankly, I don't think the government should have any say in ANY of those things). I think removing the "marriage" language from the vernacular, due to its perceived history in the United States would hasten the legalization unilaterally.
The only place I draw the line is putting the same sex couple on the birth certificate, being that it's physically impossible.
Beyond that, feth who you want, marry who you want, smoke what you want (in your own home), and think what you want. Not my business.
@Peregrine - I think the argument can be made that in the United States marriage has never been perceived as a secular institution, regardless of it's history.
I personally don't care who marries whom. It isn't my business who you want to live with or feth or love (and quite frankly, I don't think the government should have any say in ANY of those things). I think removing the "marriage" language from the vernacular, due to its perceived history in the United States would hasten the legalization unilaterally.
The only place I draw the line is putting the same sex couple on the birth certificate, being that it's physically impossible.
Beyond that, feth who you want, marry who you want, smoke what you want (in your own home), and think what you want. Not my business.
Agreed. A note on the birth certificate. Thats important as its genetic. If a person adopts a child their name doesn't go on the birth certificate (I know...I explored it).
whembly wrote: That's why we're seeing all these court cases left and right.
If it were codified in to law (either the separation of church and state or Civil Union), we wouldn't be having this discussion.
No, we're having this discussion because of two reasons:
1) Bigots who won't let go of the idea that "someone is doing something I don't approve of in their bedroom" is a legitimate reason for the government to step in and prevent it.
and
2) Republicans who have figured out that if you make a lot of noise about how you hate the same people that Jesus hates all the religious conservatives will vote for you, even though what you really care about is looting the country to make yourself and all of your rich friends even richer. And hey, all of these court cases are funded by the taxpayers, so it's not like it costs them anything to keep fighting.
If this issue was decided purely on its legal merits then gay marriage would have been universal a long time ago. The courts have been near-unanimous in ruling in favor of gay marriage, and anyone who has been paying attention can see that the only reason it hasn't been decided everywhere else is that the cases are still working their way through the court system. All current gay marriage bans are going to fall as soon as the legal challenges to them reach the appropriate court, and legalizing gay marriage won't be far behind. The only reason to keep fighting to oppose the inevitable is to make a political point about how much you hate (or at least pretend to hate) gay people.
Answer me this in simplistic terms, why should same-sex marriage be allowed?
Because if it isn't you're discriminating against gay people. Why should this be any more controversial than allowing interracial marriage?
MrDwhitey wrote: I think when it comes to the birth certificate that's just a matter of factual record keeping isn't it?
In Ohio (and I think many other states) they actually only require the biological mother to be on it (which I disagree with; I think both should be required).
It became an issue earlier this year in Cincinnati, though .
In my opinion, which I admit means very little, the birth certificate should be use solely for biological parents.
cincydooley wrote: @Peregrine - I think the argument can be made that in the United States marriage has never been perceived as a secular institution, regardless of it's history.
And I would disagree with that argument. There has always been separation of church and state (which is why you have courthouse weddings at all, you file paperwork after your priest does their thing, etc), and now it's becoming even more common to get married outside of traditional religious ceremonies.
I think removing the "marriage" language from the vernacular, due to its perceived history in the United States would hasten the legalization unilaterally.
But it's already inevitable, and happening pretty quickly. Why appease a few bigots when you can just tell them to STFU and get the same end result?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively the state can create a "civil compact" that anyone can sign onto who is of legal age and consenting. All those rights and duties are granted (once you pay the tax .
But how is that any different than having government-recognized marriage? You have the exact same thing, just with a different name. All you've done is concede control over the term "marriage" to the obnoxious religious groups who demand exclusive ownership of it, something the government shouldn't have any interest in doing.
whembly wrote: K... then, you'd have no problem with States calling it a Civil Union then.
I mean, after all, everyone is treated equally.
That would technically be equality, but there's no reason to do it that way other than appeasing a few obnoxious bigots who don't deserve any appeasement. You know, kind of like how it would be equal if we listened to a hypothetical KKK demand to replace "marriage" with "race-mixing union" for everyone so that they wouldn't be offended by having "marriage" applied to interracial couples.
whembly wrote: K... then, you'd have no problem with States calling it a Civil Union then.
I mean, after all, everyone is treated equally.
That would technically be equality, but there's no reason to do it that way other than appeasing a few obnoxious bigots who don't deserve any appeasement. You know, kind of like how it would be equal if we listened to a hypothetical KKK demand to replace "marriage" with "race-mixing union" for everyone so that they wouldn't be offended by having "marriage" applied to interracial couples.
Your example is the KKK trying to change the definition of marriage from a man and a women. So yes its pretty much the same. Marriage doesnt say anything about race, simply man and women.
People want to keep it man and women, some groups like your hypothetical KKK want to change that to something else to fit their views instead of the normal marriage.
So a gay couple wanting to get married is changing the definition of marriage in the traditional sense, just like the KKK in your example is trying to change marriage into something else.
A civil union is the bond between 2 people, marriage is between man and women.
The kkk changing that is no different to the gay couple changing that.
Answer me this in simplistic terms, why should same-sex marriage be allowed?
Because if it isn't you're discriminating against gay people.
K... then, you'd have no problem with States calling it a Civil Union then.
I mean, after all, everyone is treated equally.
Wasn't this the basis of "Separate but equal".
Making them different only allows for one to make laws against the other. Sure it's "Civil Unions", but it doesn't give them the benefits of "Marriage".
Answer me this in simplistic terms, why should same-sex marriage be allowed?
Because if it isn't you're discriminating against gay people.
K... then, you'd have no problem with States calling it a Civil Union then.
I mean, after all, everyone is treated equally.
Wasn't this the basis of "Separate but equal".
Making them different only allows for one to make laws against the other. Sure it's "Civil Unions", but it doesn't give them the benefits of "Marriage".
Its only different if the govenment still recognizes marriage. If everything is default Civil Union then its the same. If the couple want to call themselve married thats their business.
Answer me this in simplistic terms, why should same-sex marriage be allowed?
Because if it isn't you're discriminating against gay people.
K... then, you'd have no problem with States calling it a Civil Union then.
I mean, after all, everyone is treated equally.
Wasn't this the basis of "Separate but equal".
Making them different only allows for one to make laws against the other. Sure it's "Civil Unions", but it doesn't give them the benefits of "Marriage".
Its only different if the govenment still recognizes marriage. If everything is default Civil Union then its the same. If the couple want to call themselve married thats their business.
That makes more sense then, thank you. I thought it was a thought that both would have their own group.
Swastakowey wrote: Marriage doesnt say anything about race, simply man and women.
Clearly you missed the debate over interracial marriage, where people DID argue that race matters and it took a supreme court ruling for that to end (and decades of social change before it was widely accepted). The comparison is valid.
Swastakowey wrote: Marriage doesnt say anything about race, simply man and women.
Clearly you missed the debate over interracial marriage, where people DID argue that race matters and it took a supreme court ruling for that to end (and decades of social change before it was widely accepted). The comparison is valid.
I did miss that debate, because marriage/racial issues are hardly a thing in my country. Didnt even know it was an issue.
Im just saying, that changing marriage regardless if you agree or not, is still changing marriage which people have an issue with. Hence why the issues are around.
Wither you change to include gays, or change to exclude other nationalities. Both are/where trying to change marriage.
Chocolate fudge cakes with those caramel curls... mmmm
I see that and raise you by an Ameretto Cake!
"
Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. All cakes are not created EQUAL ( and better not be created with artificial sweetner) but i'm sure they can all get along, I'm not sure about cakes getting married, but I certainly like to marry cake with my stomach, however divorce from cake generally does not work out to well for the cake.
cincydooley wrote: Hey Frazz - I read a study this week that said weiner doggs are actually the most aggressive dog breed! You familiar with this?
Rodney is a snake killing dog of death who once chased a vulture off a kill. A bird dog once came up to us and the owner thought it was fun how Rodney was jumping at him playing until he realized Rodney was actually trying to rip the other dog's throat out. While walking, TBone once sniffed a bug and deliberately stepped on it, then kept walking, like a Boss.
Because they are BADGER DOGS. When you're bred to climb into a badger's home and kill his ass, you're a mean sumbitch.
Though I do think it's fun that you think the Washington Post, NPR, and NYT are moderate and unbiased 
