|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Not marriage equality, but still gay rights related: Pretty toothless seeing as this only bans professionals with actual credentials. Crackpot private amateurs can keep shoveling the pray-away-the-gay "therapy". And let's face it, most of those doing this were unlicensed religious kooks.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 12:50 |
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2024 17:09 |
|
At least it represents a change in the political climate for the better.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 16:23 |
|
Washington state's pro-marriage campaign yesterday unveiled two great new ads from ministers and other religious leaders who support marriage equality. They are really doing a great job on the campaign running an entirely positive campaign focusing on the "freedom to marry" angle and hyping their support in the religious community.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2012 18:25 |
|
It'll be a squeaker in Minnesota, from PPP Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota? Yes.................................................................. 46% No ................................................................... 49% Not sure .......................................................... 5% Won't vote on the amendment ........................ 1% quote:That represents a 4 point shift compared to a month ago when it led for passage 48-47. The movement over the last month has been with independent voters. Where they supported the amendment 51/42 in September, they've now almost flipped and oppose it by a 52/42 margin. Women (43/51) are stronger in their opposition to it than men (49/47) are in their support. Most of the margin against the amendment is being provided by younger voters who say they plan to vote against it 53/38.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 00:33 |
That's pretty good. Opposition among young people (53%) has never been great in Minnesota polls but voters over 45 are >47% against which is excellent. Civil union support doesn't matter unless there's a DFL majority in 2013.
|
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 02:10 |
|
seal it with a kiss posted:It'll be a squeaker in Minnesota, from PPP That 1% at the end makes me unreasonably angry
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 04:20 |
|
Riptor posted:That 1% at the end makes me unreasonably angry If it makes you feel better, if a voter doesn't answer the ballot question it counts as a no vote.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 04:26 |
|
So, there's a group in Missouri is looking into putting same-sex marriage and sexual orientation protections on the ballot in 2014. I'm from Missouri and not quite sure if I think this is possible (or to even get enough signatures to get on the ballot). St. Louis and Kansas City are clear strongholds for this - Columbia, Kirksville, and a couple other college towns would likely be pretty good too. The group's actually run by a couple of recent college grads from Kirksville (and, if I remember correct, Kirksville was represented in the Missouri state government by a gay Republican). Even some of the more conservative parts of St. Louis County would probably vote yes - a lot of their issues are fiscal. Of course between St. Louis and Kansas City is a deep red state - and it doesn't help that St. Louis has been losing population. I'll likely be doing as much field work for them as I can - I go to school out of state so unfortunately I won't be able to do it too much. 2014 may be a very different Missouri than 2012, so it will be interesting to see how this goes.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 04:43 |
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The letter from the punter is incredible and worth reading. This is admittedly anecdotal, but I was phone banking for the R74 campaign last night, and at the end of 2 hours, this is pretty much what my numbers looked like, minus all the hang ups that are typical with phone banking for just about anything. It felt good to have so many enthusiastically supportive people on the line; a whole lot different than when I volunteered at a Planned Parenthood phone bank a couple years back.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 20:43 |
DrNutt posted:This is admittedly anecdotal, but I was phone banking for the R74 campaign last night, and at the end of 2 hours, this is pretty much what my numbers looked like, minus all the hang ups that are typical with phone banking for just about anything. It felt good to have so many enthusiastically supportive people on the line; a whole lot different than when I volunteered at a Planned Parenthood phone bank a couple years back. It seems like a vote by mail state fits really well with a get out the vote campaign versus trying to change minds.
|
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 21:35 |
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Do you expect to switch focus to likely supporters once ballots have been mailed? I'm not that high up the food chain, but GOTV will likely be the focus in the week leading up to the vote. Right now we're targeting likely undecided voters, but again, anecdotally, the only people I spoke to in two hours of calling last night were either strongly in support, or strongly against. e: You are probably right, but there are some pretty huge soft negative ads coming in the next few weeks, so we can't really write off the undecided voter just yet.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 21:40 |
Polls! Maine Sep 20th 57-36 for. A little higher than the other polls that week but the average support since March is 54. Maryland Sep 29th 49-39 for. 50.5% average support is incredibly annoying. Be more decisive, Maryland! Washington Sep 30th 55-40 for. Good job Washington. 54% average. e: Minnesota averages 45% opposition. Based on historical rates of people ignoring down ballot races (not voting = No) we need to poll at least 47.5% UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
# ? Oct 9, 2012 23:08 |
|
So my friend who works at call center today got fired pretty quick. They brought up his sexuality also from what I understand. Thanks Idaho for allowing discrimination against the LGBT community!
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 02:26 |
|
ratbert90 posted:Idaho well see there's your problem
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 02:42 |
|
ratbert90 posted:works at call center They did him a favor. The unemployment line is a much less soul-crushing use of one's time.
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 08:22 |
ratbert90 posted:So my friend who works at call center today got fired pretty quick. They brought up his sexuality also from what I understand. That's awful. I can't imagine living in an environment where your sexual preference can send you to the unemployment line.
|
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 18:06 |
|
VikingofRock posted:That's awful. I can't imagine living in an environment where your sexual preference can send you to the unemployment line. I'm not personally gay, but I will advocate for gay rights all day long, and I also changed my step-kids feelings about homosexuality from their crazy biological dads "all gays are terrible people who are living in sin." mantra. So at least I hope I am helping.
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 18:17 |
ratbert90 posted:Welcome to Idaho, where gender identity and sexual orientation aren't protected classes against discrimination. That guy is gonna see you as the man who "gayed" his kids, and that's loving awesome. It's really the small wins like this - where bigoted people get their faces rubbed in poo poo - that help me get through the day.
|
|
# ? Oct 13, 2012 19:39 |
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:That guy is gonna see you as the man who "gayed" his kids, and that's loving awesome. Oh he already has gone crazy about it, and I smiled for the whole day.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2012 05:36 |
|
Take a trip to the farm quote:2 roosters can't make a chicken, 2 bulls can't make a cow. when God said love your brother, I don't think he meant like that. The catchiest homophobic song ever
|
# ? Oct 14, 2012 06:05 |
|
That's some toe tappin degradation right there.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2012 06:13 |
Guess he's never seen a male dog humping another male dog.
|
|
# ? Oct 14, 2012 06:20 |
|
Way to go Pennsylvania!quote:A Pennsylvania legislator has introduced a bill to ban sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) through counseling, just days after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a similar bill into law. First Cali and now PA, these are some good signs. Last month NJ also joined the plan to get rid of this poo poo.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2012 23:30 |
|
Interesting wording from an LBGT site. "If passed, the bill would make it illegal for counselors in Pennsylvania to help minors with unwanted same-sex attractions." Pretty sure the experts in the field have established that it's not "help". Hence the point of all this. They can still get actual help in the form of being counseled about their feelings, and reconciling them with one's morals or faith, rather than stifling them altogether. First idiot from Facebook posted:What if someone wants this therapy? Lets just take away any freedom that we don't agree with shall we? Thanks for the input, Texas. I can't believe these people have the nerve to post with their real names via Facebook so that their wrongness will be enshrined for eternity.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2012 03:39 |
|
DOMA struck down by a conservative judge in appeals court. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ppointed-judge/ quote:Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs is a very conservative judge. He joined a court decision effectively declaring corporations immune to international human rights law — even when they “trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot’s political opponents, or engage in piracy.” And he once gave a speech to the conservative Federalist Society decrying the “anti-social effects” of attorneys providing free legal services to the less fortunate.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 17:00 |
|
gently caress yes. What's the time frame for it to stop being enforced? Or will it go to the Supreme Court before any meaningful change occurs?
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 17:27 |
|
Noxjunx posted:gently caress yes. What's the time frame for it to stop being enforced? Or will it go to the Supreme Court before any meaningful change occurs? In the campaign thread someone was saying it'll be effective in the areas the 2nd appeals court has immediate jurisdiction over, but won't have effect outside of those areas until the supreme court affirms it or declines to adjudicate the case.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 17:29 |
|
Yiggy posted:In the campaign thread someone was saying it'll be effective in the areas the 2nd appeals court has immediate jurisdiction over, but won't have effect outside of those areas until the supreme court affirms it or declines to adjudicate the case. This of course, supposes they don't grant an injunction pending SCOTUS hearing the case.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 17:38 |
|
I've been seeing a lot of press about military spouses getting screwed by DOMA. If the Supreme Court only grants cert, will it change anything for the military or will it still only affect those jurisdictions?
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 17:43 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:This of course, supposes they don't grant an injunction pending SCOTUS hearing the case. Yea, an injunction can come to basically say 'hey stop this poo poo while we suss out legality' and if I had to guess I'd say it will, but honestly it's a crapshoot on that, right now it only effects his jurisdiction until the supreme court rules.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 18:49 |
|
Yiggy posted:In the campaign thread someone was saying it'll be effective in the areas the 2nd appeals court has immediate jurisdiction over, but won't have effect outside of those areas until the supreme court affirms it or declines to adjudicate the case. And those areas are: New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. Just for information purposes.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 19:44 |
|
Riptor posted:That 1% at the end makes me unreasonably angry They shouldn't. I've volunteered with Vote No and did phonebanking once, several people got people who said they wouldn't vote because they felt conflicted. As seal it with a kiss said, their lack of a vote will be counted as a no.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 19:56 |
This came from the Second Circuit, comprised entirely of marriage states. That will be useful in the incredibly unlikely chance SCOTUS doesn't take the case and we need victories in every Circuit. Piling on a 4th or 5th successful challenge isn't really going to sway SCOTUS one way or another even though Windsor is by far the best frame for this issue. 83 year old widow faces direct financial penalty for having a spouse of the same sex. That dissenting judge ruined our perfect record in DOMA section 3 (feds do not recognize same sex marriage) challenges. We're like 14-1. Unless a Justice dies and gets replaced by Romney, I'd be stunned if DOMA section 3 was around after June. SCOTUS is certainly allowed to get rid of DOMA section 2 (states do not have to recognize out of state same sex marriage licenses) but there is not a widespread effort to challenge that. tl;dr Don't expect anything useful until June. SCOTUS will probably grant cert in late November. e: Freedom To Marry is mad. ee: New MN Poll 47-46 in favor of the amendment. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 21:08 |
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:ee: New MN Poll drat this is nerve-racking A couple weeks ago some assholes ripped my parents' neighbor's VOTE NO lawn sign in half. I hate seeing my state like this
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 21:42 |
|
Schwarbage posted:drat this is nerve-racking I'm going to be moderating some discussions between both sides at the U next week. It certainly should be interesting.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 21:57 |
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:ee: New MN Poll Bear in mind when interpreting these polls I believe there's a tendency for support for anti-gay marriage amendments to be understated in polls: if it's close that's not a good sign.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2012 22:08 |
|
The following ad showed up on my feed from the NOM called [b]Gay Marriage Offers Nothing to Society Thankfully I found the following video that made my night. The video is Rev Phil Snider speaking at a Springfield council about an ordinance granting LGBT to be added to the non-discrimination clause It is great to see someone of the faith stand up like that. The longer video is 45 minutes of the most whacked out citizens explaining why they do not want to be forced to hire gay people. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 20, 2012 |
# ? Oct 20, 2012 06:20 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:The following ad showed up on my feed from the NOM called [b]Gay Marriage Offers Nothing to Society This is the reason I'm going bald. Benefits of "natural" marriage: it makes the couple happy Benefits of same sex marriage: it makes the couple happy Isn't there some old saying about the USA, something about the pursuit of happiness? I'm probably imagining it. That sounds silly.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 07:37 |
|
Nebulous goals of happiness aside, there are plenty of coldly logical arguments to make the case that Gay Marriage does in fact offer benefits to society. And surprise, these benefits would be the exact same as those of opposite sex marriage! Married couples are able to pool resources and thus tend to be more financially secure. Married couples have each other's backs. They are more easily able to weather bad luck in life (disabling injury, loosing job, etc.) and not require government assistance. Married couples are more likely to buy a home (or make other big ticket purchases), something I hear the government likes to encourage. Married couples tend towards monogamy and thus are less likely to acquire and spread STDs. Married couples are more likely to have children which the government likes as well.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 08:26 |
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2024 17:09 |
|
Cocks Cable posted:Married couples are more likely to have children which the government likes as well. Yeah, in this area heterosexual couples do have a pretty substantial advantage. (At least, as long as state governments continue to make it harder for gay couples to adopt.)
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 23:52 |