|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think anyone is doing this. Class frictions is one of the problems in our community, but talking about it doesn't mean that it's the source of all problems. On second reading you're probably right I think I misread what was said, but it is an attitude that's prevalent in this thread that "rich white gay guys" are the bad guys.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:drat, I'm jealous of lesbians because they do some lovely stuff yet "affluent gay men" catch all the blame. It really is amazing to see all problems within my community being attributed to some shadowy cabal. Here's the money chart, so to speak:  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/06/study-poverty-rate-elevated-for-lgbt-community More data from the census: quote:DUBNER: Let’s take a look at U.S. Census data. According to some analyses, median household income for heterosexual couples is about $86,000. For gay male couples, meanwhile, median household income is…$105,600, or nearly 20 percent more. And, for what it’s worth, lesbian couples have lower median income than heterosexual couples, about $84,000. So Danny Rosa seems to be right – gay men do seem to earn more. So the next logical question is … why? Practical interpretation: both gay men and lesbians face higher-than-average rates of poverty. Lesbians in particular are hurt by overall lower earning power for women then men. However, for gay men specifically there is a huge bubble of wealth at the top that raises the average income to 20% higher than the average and this bubble does not exist to anywhere near the same extent for lesbian women, or transgendered people, or any other demographic. A shadowy cabal isn't anything that's been claimed (i.e. a strawman) and that's not how things work in reality, it's just the same FYGM politics and special interest pandering that peel off any wealthy subdemographic. That kind of wealth inequality is a situation that's ripe for Republican advantage, if they can shut up the yokel crowd about how much they hate gays. It would probably happen at a state level first, places like New York and New Jersey have decent numbers of gay people and don't have to pander to the hicks like they might down south. If your representative isn't crowing about how much he hates gays (all politics are local) it's entirely possible that those affluent gay people could start voting Republican. I really think the GOP is going to take a turn for the "shut up about gay people" very soon, probably 2016 even if they decide to use it as a wedge issue in deep red states one last time. A lot of that pain will be inflicted anyway very soon. It was wildly apparent to everyone in 2012 that the inmates were running the asylum (endless yokel primaries, Rove's little meltdown, unskewing, Cruz's one man government shutdown, etc), and that's simply not a way that the GOP can win. I think the "no more fools" is going to come from on high, strongly, and soon. The state-level parties run their own internal affairs and I think a lot of them are going to start tightening their grip. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Serious question for New Mexico goons: how is New Mexico so close to Texas and yet so progressive on social issues? Sure they weren't the first state to legal homosexual marriage, but I remember reading they were the first state to recognize homosexuals married in other places, and I'm pretty sure that some counties in New Mexico had legalized gay marriage even before the entire state did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:On second reading you're probably right I think I misread what was said, but it is an attitude that's prevalent in this thread that "rich white gay guys" are the bad guys. They're bad guys insofar as they tend to have pretty much all the blinders that your average rich white dude does. The rich white gay dudes aren't particularly interested in deploying their political and financial capital for the benefit of anybody other than themselves. I saw this most strongly when I was teaching in Minnesota schools during the Anoka-Hennepin suicide epidemic: the advocates for anti-bullying measures were receiving barely any financial support from the standard panoply of "Gay, Inc." national groups, even though this district was in national headlines. If you're touting yourself as a major queer advocacy organization but can't be bothered to give a small amount that would nonetheless be of huge benefit to a local push like that, especially when it's literally a life-and-death situation for queer kids, then you probably need to reexamine whether you're actually working on behalf of the community.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Here's the money chart, so to speak: Is that controlled for state by state income differences? I'm pretty sure there's a correlation between high average wages and marriage equality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Does it ever do any good? Because I figured most of them already convinced themselves that marriage equality is big government because it's "big government trying to change the natural definition of marriage!" It trips them up, because they aren't expecting you to come from a conservative angle. Of course, it's not going to change anyone's mind on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:It trips them up, because they aren't expecting you to come from a conservative angle. Of course, it's not going to change anyone's mind on the issue. Eh, I tried that on my dad years and years ago after the Lawrence v Texas ruling, and he came back with "government enforces laws that are good for society." He believes that government getting "out of the way" of business is what is legitimately best for rich and poor alike, and that government needs to protect the family as the bedrock of our society. Only a Libertarian would be swayed by such an argument. He seems to be moving along towards acceptance of gay marriage though between my coming out, and him finding out that one of his friends from college is gay and just got married in California. Now all I need to do is keep hammering the Gospels on him whenever he brings up Christianity and I think I can turn him to social justice. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Serious question for New Mexico goons: how is New Mexico so close to Texas and yet so progressive on social issues? Sure they weren't the first state to legal homosexual marriage, but I remember reading they were the first state to recognize homosexuals married in other places, and I'm pretty sure that some counties in New Mexico had legalized gay marriage even before the entire state did. Hispanic catholics, ski bums, wicked sunsets, hippy art towns and hot air balloon festivals. Whereas most of Texas where the socially conservative types live is blighted scrubland blanketed in a miasma of fart smell, either from the oil patch or the ranching. People in New Mexico are by and large happy, whereas people in Texas outside of the hill country, well... you get the idea...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, I predict that affluent white married gay couples will be welcomed back into the party. Now that they have their tax breaks, they'll be more than happy to poo poo all over minorites, the poor, trans people, etc etc. Bonus because they can point to "See this politician is gay, and he doesn't think we need a non-discrimination amendment. Looks like liberals are the real bigots because they don't think a gay person can hold a job." There's no reason to switch parties when the Democrats will give them what they want without the overt bigotry. The Republicans are so hostile to gay anything at this point that no openly gay person would be allowed to have any real position of power or influence in the GOP. There won't be any big defection in the foreseeable future. ENDA will be the next big legislative push but it is in limbo until we do something about the House. It's going to be a lot harder for HRC to justify supporting a version of ENDA without trans protections now that we know that the Senate is already capable of passing a fully inclusive ENDA. It would be nice to have HRC's full support of a non bullshit version of ENDA but the DADT debacle proved that it isn't necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If there is one constant about Evangelical Christianity as a political movement in this country, it's that the Word of God is secondary to the class interests of the rich. That is, of course, not true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That is, of course, not true.  That whole article is about how the Christian Right focused on issues Jesus didn't give a poo poo about (abortion) or issues that Jesus explicitly condemned (public prayer, which school prayer would definitely fall under), and ignored everything Jesus said about charity, benevolence, and the sinfulness of the rich in order to disguise fellating the wealthy as defending Christianity.The GOP doesn't care if the Evangelicals want to gently caress over working women who want equal pay, or if they want to end abortion: neither of those things affects rich people. Once gay marriage is entrenched though, opposing it will likely alienate such a large portion of the electorate (like opposing interracial marriage would today) that the GOP will offer them a more popularly despised target to hate and fear and blame for all the problems of America and tell them to knock off the open gay slurs and switch to dogwhistles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
The Christian Right didn't exist as a political force but to fight cultural-war battles; they don't give a poo poo about economics past sloganeering, which is how you get someone like Huckabee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
You don't think evangelicals carry water for the Reagan vision of low taxes and high inequality?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The Christian Right didn't exist as a political force but to fight cultural-war battles; they don't give a poo poo about economics past sloganeering, which is how you get someone like Huckabee. So what you're saying is: it's more that the GOP adopts stupid wedge issues to attract the evangelicals and get them to vote for free-market economics. Maybe you're right, but it does seem that people like Huckabee or Santorum sure seem to buy into that Just World Prosperity Gospel poo poo that wealth is evidence of God's blessing and poverty is sinful...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what you're saying is: it's more that the GOP adopts stupid wedge issues to attract the evangelicals and get them to vote for free-market economics. People who believe in Prosperity gospel and are evangelicals do exist and are the loudest (because with money it's easy to do stuff) but there are a large number of people who see the inherent hypocrisy with the "Free market Jesus" stuff and I believe it's going to reach a point where they just stop voting entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Supreme Court stopped Utah gay marriages until the 10th Circuit makes a ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Utah marriages put on hold by SCOTUS pending the 10th ruling. edit: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Time to turn Utah from blue back to green in the OP map.  Equality on Trial's writeup
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Now that hunger strike rear end in a top hat is going to think he succeeded by fasting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Utah marriages put on hold by SCOTUS pending the 10th ruling. Isn't the fact that the 10th did not stay the ruling a good sign of their actual ruling ahead? And what's the timeline for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
The stay shouldn't influence the timeline a whole lot, but the 10th probably won't let this sit too long. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Now that hunger strike rear end in a top hat is going to think he succeeded by fasting. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I hope this doesn't portend Sotamayor becoming a reverse Souter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I hope this doesn't portend Sotamayor becoming a reverse Souter. She brought it to the other justices and CNN reports "Monday's order had no noted dissents and can be enforced immediately." I think they're just covering all their bases so that when SSM bans are ultimately struck down for good, nobody can rationally say that the SCOTUS didn't give them a fair chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Folks got a couple weeks to get married, so I feel slightly less bad about this. We'll have to wait and see how things go. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Folks got a couple weeks to get married, so I feel slightly less bad about this. We'll have to wait and see how things go. Is there a number published somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
What's the deal with the two vacancies on the 10th? I thought Reid jammed through a bunch of limbo nominations the republicans had been stalling, but it looks like one of them has been pending for over a year now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Is there a number published somewhere? U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Dec. 20 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights. Since then, more than 900 same-sex couples have tied the knot. from USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/supreme-court-halts-utah-gay-marriage/4338799/
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Is there a number published somewhere? Somewhere a bit north of 900 is what I saw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Ballz posted:She brought it to the other justices and CNN reports "Monday's order had no noted dissents and can be enforced immediately." I hadn't seen that detail, that is heartening, even if it stops everything for a year or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
So far the internet has only sent Trestin one pizza, the same number as it sent to Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:So far the internet has only sent Trestin one pizza, the same number as it sent to Joe Biden. We should make up for this by sending Biden another pizza.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I hope this doesn't portend Sotamayor becoming a reverse Souter. It was an order from all nine justices and means nothing substantively. It's basically the Supreme Court fixing the original error of the Utah attorney general which the district court judge probably should have fixed on his own, but which the 10th Circuit really couldn't for boring procedural reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I hope this doesn't portend Sotamayor becoming a reverse Souter. According to articles on this, she's just the one designated to handle emergency requests like this. The 10th was slow dealing with the stay, and it was requested that the Supreme Court handle it. It's just boring court procedure that got dropped on her desk, rather than something she went out of her way to take action on. Sotomayor's views aren't really being expressed at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
ultramiraculous posted:According to articles on this, she's just the one designated to handle emergency requests like this. The 10th was slow dealing with the stay, and it was requested that the Supreme Court handle it. It's just boring court procedure that got dropped on her desk, rather than something she went out of her way to take action on. Sotomayor's views aren't really being expressed at all Actually, this is not the case. The 10th wasn't being slow, they had rejected the application for a stay. They said they'd expedite their hearings for Utah, but they rejected Utah's requests for a stay. Sotomayor handles certain types of appeals for the 10th Circuit, which is her riding. Sotomayor took the request and forwarded it to the entire body, and the entire court ruled for the stay without objection. Now, as much as I'm in favor of marriage equality, there was a good case for a stay here even if Utah was making ludicrous claims about why the stay should be put into place. That's why you have a court which just issued Perry and Windsor who unanimously approved the stay. It's almost certainly not because they've all suddenly changed their minds. I'd honestly expected that the issuance of licenses would be cut off much more quickly than it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Yea pretty much, the stay is valid even if Utah went on and on about the wrong rear end reasons for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Could the judge who ruled Utah's ban unconstitutional have applied a preemptive stay to his ruling? And if so, is it significant that he didn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
NPR had this to say on the stay:quote:CORNISH: So just how big a deal is this, that they granted this stay? Should we be reading a lot into it? Lutha Mahtin posted:Could the judge who ruled Utah's ban unconstitutional have applied a preemptive stay to his ruling? And if so, is it significant that he didn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:From what I understand, the Utah attorneys made a procedural mistake which prevented them from requesting a stay on the ruling. So 900 or however many marriages occurred because Utah's AG office is incompetent? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
I'm having trouble finding a story about the judge's original denial of the stay--Google keeps pointing to results talking about the SCOTUS granting a stay--but I vaguely remember the Utah attorneys failing to request a stay properly, which resulted in the rush of marriages immediately after the decision. Usually parties ask for an immediate stay after a decision like this, which was granted (for example) in the California case that struck down Prop 8. Utah filed correctly 3 days later, at which point the judge said "1) gently caress you, I'm not issuing a stay on the merits 2) if you wanted an emergency stay for procedural reasons, you should've asked properly to begin with." The 10th circuit also denied the requests for a stay, so that's how we got 2 weeks of marital bliss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
ReidRansom posted:What's the deal with the two vacancies on the 10th? I thought Reid jammed through a bunch of limbo nominations the republicans had been stalling, but it looks like one of them has been pending for over a year now. He did jam through some nominations (to the DC Circuit Court, the Chair of the Fed, and some others), but the Senate hasn't gotten to other circuit court nominees yet - there were a lot of backlogged nominees, and Republicans still have a number of tactics they can use to delay those votes, which of course they've been using.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:08
|
|