Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
poopinmymouth
Mar 2, 2005

PROUD 2 B AMERICAN (these colors don't run)

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Not marriage equality, but still gay rights related:
California bans gay conversion therapy

Now if only the rest of the country could follow suit.

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Macaroni
Dec 20, 2002
...it does nothing.
At least it represents a change in the political climate for the better.

gohuskies
Oct 23, 2010

I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.
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.

seal it with a kiss
Sep 14, 2007

:3
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.

In general 47% of voters in the state say they support gay marriage to 43% who are opposed. And 74% of voters, including even 52% of Republicans, support some form of legal recognition for gay couples either in the form of marriage or civil unions.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



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.

Riptor
Apr 13, 2003

here's to feelin' good all the time

seal it with a kiss posted:

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%

That 1% at the end makes me unreasonably angry

seal it with a kiss
Sep 14, 2007

:3

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.

raito
Sep 13, 2012
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.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

The letter from the punter is incredible and worth reading.


SurveyUSA has great results from Washington.
It's within the margin of error plus 2-4% liars that plague every marriage poll, but I have no complaints.
I would be thrilled to keep polling 49% among ages 50+.


e: Human Rights Campaign made a really good timeline of the next 12 months.



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.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



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.
Do you expect to switch focus to likely supporters once ballots have been mailed?
It seems like a vote by mail state fits really well with a get out the vote campaign versus trying to change minds.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

Do you expect to switch focus to likely supporters once ballots have been mailed?
It seems like a vote by mail state fits really well with a get out the vote campaign versus trying to change minds.

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.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



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

FlapYoJacks
Feb 12, 2009
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!

DAD LOST MY IPOD
Feb 3, 2012

Fats Dominar is on the case



well see there's your problem

Zero VGS
Aug 16, 2002
ASK ME ABOUT HOW HUMAN LIVES THAT MADE VIDEO GAME CONTROLLERS ARE WORTH MORE
Lipstick Apathy

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.

VikingofRock
Aug 24, 2008




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.

Thanks Idaho for allowing discrimination against the LGBT community!

That's awful. I can't imagine living in an environment where your sexual preference can send you to the unemployment line.

FlapYoJacks
Feb 12, 2009

VikingofRock posted:

That's awful. I can't imagine living in an environment where your sexual preference can send you to the unemployment line.
Welcome to Idaho, where gender identity and sexual orientation aren't protected classes against discrimination. :smith:

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. :unsmith:

A GIANT PARSNIP
Apr 13, 2010

Too much fuckin' eggnog


ratbert90 posted:

Welcome to Idaho, where gender identity and sexual orientation aren't protected classes against discrimination. :smith:

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. :unsmith:

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.

FlapYoJacks
Feb 12, 2009

A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

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.

Oh he already has gone crazy about it, and I smiled for the whole day.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

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. :D

The catchiest homophobic song ever

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth
That's some toe tappin degradation right there.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005
Guess he's never seen a male dog humping another male dog.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

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.

“Homosexuality is not a disorder, so attempts to ‘convert’ the sexual orientation of anyone, particularly a minor, threatens the individual’s short- and long-term health and well-being,” said Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia), who proposed H.B. 2691 on Oct. 5.

If passed, the bill would make it illegal for counselors in Pennsylvania to help minors with unwanted same-sex attractions. Brown signed the California bill on Sept. 30, which prohibits SOCE counseling for anyone under 18. A lawsuit is currently under way to keep it from taking effect.

First Cali and now PA, these are some good signs. Last month NJ also joined the plan to get rid of this poo poo.

Zero VGS
Aug 16, 2002
ASK ME ABOUT HOW HUMAN LIVES THAT MADE VIDEO GAME CONTROLLERS ARE WORTH MORE
Lipstick Apathy
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.

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."
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.

And yet, this severely conservative judge is also the author of an opinion striking down the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Even more significantly, Chief Judge Jacobs’ opinion concludes that any law which discriminates against gay men and lesbians should be treated very skeptically under our Constitution:

quote:

[W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

This is a Really. Big. Deal. Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights, likely causing state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be virtually eliminated. And the fact that this decision came from such a conservative judge makes it all the more likely that DOMA will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.

One unfortunate caveat is necessary: Judge Chester Straub, a Clinton-appointee, dissented. Nevertheless, this marks the second time that a prominent conservative court of appeals judge declared DOMA unconstitutional, and it relies on a sweeping rationale in doing so. Supporters of equality have a great deal to celebrate today.

Noxjunx
Jul 25, 2009
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?

Yiggy
Sep 12, 2004

"Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

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.

ComradeCosmobot
Dec 4, 2004

USPOL July

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.

Noxjunx
Jul 25, 2009
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?

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

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.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

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.

RembrandtQEinstein
Jul 1, 2009

A GOD, A MESSIAH, AN ARCHANGEL, A KING, A PRINCE, AND AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE.

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.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



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. :argh:
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

Sad Billionaire
Mar 31, 2009

What a twist
Fan of Britches

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

ee: New MN Poll
47-46 in favor of the amendment.

drat this is nerve-racking :ohdear:

A couple weeks ago some assholes ripped my parents' neighbor's VOTE NO lawn sign in half. I hate seeing my state like this :smith:

RembrandtQEinstein
Jul 1, 2009

A GOD, A MESSIAH, AN ARCHANGEL, A KING, A PRINCE, AND AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE.

Schwarbage posted:

drat this is nerve-racking :ohdear:

A couple weeks ago some assholes ripped my parents' neighbor's VOTE NO lawn sign in half. I hate seeing my state like this :smith:

I'm going to be moderating some discussions between both sides at the U next week. It certainly should be interesting.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

ee: New MN Poll
47-46 in favor of the amendment.

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.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

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

Node
May 20, 2001

KICKED IN THE COOTER
:dings:
Taco Defender

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.

iceyman
Jul 11, 2001

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Grundulum
Feb 28, 2006

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.)

  • Locked thread