|
evilweasel posted:I swear people must be picking the states that will go bonkers the most to start off with deliberately. Either that, or intentionally surrounding Texas just to tweak their paranoia. "THERE ARE GAYS ALL AROUND YOU! SURRENDER PEACEFULLY!"
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Either that, or intentionally surrounding Texas just to tweak their paranoia. Gays without and gays within. Let's get some siege mentality going for those in the red rural counties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
quote:Against this background, the European Union and its Member States consider, as one of their priorities, the dissemination of their neo-liberal values as a universal lifestyle for all other members of the international community. This is particularly evident in their aggressive promotion of the sexual minorities' rights. Attempts have been made to enforce on other countries an alien view of homosexuality and same-sex marriages as a norm of life and some kind of a natural social phenomenon that deserves support at the state level. Such an approach encounters resistance not only in the countries upholding traditional values, but also in those countries which have always taken a liberal attitude towards queers. Suffice it to recall the protest reaction of a major part of the French society to the decision on legalization of same-sex marriages in the country. This is the Russian foreign ministry saying this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Meanwhile, in Nigeria:  DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Either that, or intentionally surrounding Texas just to tweak their paranoia. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
So what are the odds this gets brought up to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later? Utah and Oklahoma don't seem like the kind of states to not appeal if they lose at the 10th circuit. Can the Supreme Court come up with an excuse to kick the can down the road again this time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Wow, it's been a minute since i've seen or hear queer used as a perjorative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Countdown until Mary Fallin abolishes all marriage in Oklahoma by executive order to stick it to the gays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Wow, it's been a minute since i've seen or hear queer used as a perjorative. By an official national channel, no less. I guess they couldn't get "fag" past the censors Between the Nigeria story and that Russian nonsense, reading those stories always gives me a horrible hint of guilty relief that I *only* have to deal with social/career discrimination rather than being put against a wall. Some places are truly hosed
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:So what are the odds this gets brought up to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later? Utah and Oklahoma don't seem like the kind of states to not appeal if they lose at the 10th circuit. Can the Supreme Court come up with an excuse to kick the can down the road again this time? Nothing forces the SC to take up the case. They could shelve it for decades if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Nothing forces the SC to take up the case. They could shelve it for decades if they want to. Well yeah, I know they could do that. I guess my question is how likely is it that they'll wind up ruling on it in the next few years. It seems like last time around they were apprehensive about ruling on the issue directly, dropping the Prop 8 case on a standing issue and making a narrower ruling on DOMA than some hoped (I might not be remembering things that well here). Now it seems like there's going to be a lot more pressure to come up with an actual ruling. Some of these states are probably going to appeal to the SC themselves instead of dropping it (like California did) so there won't be the standing issue, and with so many cases coming up the lower courts are probably going to want clarification?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Well yeah, I know they could do that. I guess my question is how likely is it that they'll wind up ruling on it in the next few years. It seems like last time around they were apprehensive about ruling on the issue directly, dropping the Prop 8 case on a standing issue and making a narrower ruling on DOMA than some hoped (I might not be remembering things that well here). Now it seems like there's going to be a lot more pressure to come up with an actual ruling. Some of these states are probably going to appeal to the SC themselves instead of dropping it (like California did) so there won't be the standing issue, and with so many cases coming up the lower courts are probably going to want clarification? But all cases are at least one court away from even reaching the Supreme Court, perhaps even more if they go through en banc review. So it could be another two years until the first case reaches the SC. If they dither a bit about it I think they can delay it until about 5 years from now, and perhaps ruling for marriage equality will have much more support so they feel freer to just straight out rule all SSM bans unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Also portraying High school students as literal babies is so loving vile. The Greens/Socialdemocrats in Badem-Württemberg, Germany, have proposed a new syllabus for 2015 paying attention to gender identity and sexual orientation. Obviously, that means everyone will be indoctrinated into this sinful lifestyle. There's a petition to block the draft with about 90 000 signatures with some really vile parts in it (e.g. -rough translation- "The high suicide rate among LGBT youth should not just be displayed as a sign of hardship, but its causes be investigated and prevention methods developed and implemented. This issue is beyond the scope of a classroom."), a counterpetition and a lot of mudslinging. Some of the old beloved chestnuts - why do these minorities need to be in the spotlight all the time, this is not Natural, we can't make equal what is unequal, Coming out as Heterosexual, Please thing of the children!! - have popped up and it's a big fat shitstorm. The only english version I've found so far is available here. It looks like a lot of places are just superficially tolerant (in fact a lot of comments on the news argued they don't mind gays, they tolerate them - but that's all they're ready to do.) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Lunar Suite posted:The Greens/Socialdemocrats in Badem-Württemberg, Germany, have proposed a new syllabus for 2015 paying attention to gender identity and sexual orientation. Are German parents unable to opt-out their children from sex ed? The places in the US that have good sex ed programs get around whiny parents by letting them pull their kids out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Lunar Suite posted:this is not Natural, we can't make equal what is unequal Ha. It wasn't natural for humans to wear animal skins to keep from freezing to death during the winter, in the sense that humans are obviously not born with bear skin but it didn't stop them from "making equal what was unequal". I guess a word that is so ambiguous as to be meaningless is not a good basis for deciding legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Well yeah, I know they could do that. I guess my question is how likely is it that they'll wind up ruling on it in the next few years. It seems like last time around they were apprehensive about ruling on the issue directly, dropping the Prop 8 case on a standing issue and making a narrower ruling on DOMA than some hoped (I might not be remembering things that well here). Now it seems like there's going to be a lot more pressure to come up with an actual ruling. Some of these states are probably going to appeal to the SC themselves instead of dropping it (like California did) so there won't be the standing issue, and with so many cases coming up the lower courts are probably going to want clarification? As long as the lower courts are all ruling along the same lines - equal protection/due process applies, bans are unconstitutional - the Supreme Court can just keep declining to hear the cases. Then each state would just fall one by one as the lawsuits progressed through the courts. What would really spring the court into action would be if the 10th circuit decided in the Utah case that the ban was constitutional. Then you'd have two appellate courts with different decisions and the Supreme Court would basically be forced to step in to make a ruling. At least, this is how a lawyer friend tried to explain it to me, but I'm not sure I'm conveying it right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:As long as the lower courts are all ruling along the same lines - equal protection/due process applies, bans are unconstitutional - the Supreme Court can just keep declining to hear the cases. Then each state would just fall one by one as the lawsuits progressed through the courts. You're right conceptually. The idea is that having a decision that has been made two different ways at the federal circuit court of appeals level creates what is termed a circuit split, and the Supreme Court typically has to take a case to resolve it so that federal law doesn't vary depending on where you live. However, the 10th finding the prohibition on same sex marriages constitutional would not create a circuit split, because I'm not aware of any circuit that has flatly found same sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional. Most of the rulings I imagine you're thinking of have come from state courts or the lower federal courts. The closest to that would be the 9th Circuit's ruling in Perry, but that wasn't finding such prohibitions unconstitutional in general. Instead, the 9th's decision was based on the idea that once same sex marriage had been granted, it could not be taken back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Phone posting, but rumors are that 3 Republicans are leaning against voting for the Indiana amendment. Other rumor is Speaker Bosma may replace one or more of those Republicans to influence the vote. Vote has been delayed till next week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Phone posting, but rumors are that 3 Republicans are leaning against voting for the Indiana amendment. Other rumor is Speaker Bosma may replace one or more of those Republicans to influence the vote. Vote has been delayed till next week. As in, make emergency changes to who sits on that committee, in order to stack the vote?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:As in, make emergency changes to who sits on that committee, in order to stack the vote? Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Basically they're pulling out all of the stops and don't care how scummy their tactics are. It's incredible how quickly this has gone from being all but assured to pass to where it is now. Any idea who might be replaced/with whom?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Basically they're pulling out all of the stops and don't care how scummy their tactics are. It's incredible how quickly this has gone from being all but assured to pass to where it is now. To be clear, Bosma is a big supporter of this amendment and has been campaigning for it for a decade. In 2004, when he was Minority Leader (IN House spent a decade or so switching hands until GOP got a supermajority in 2010). he called it "the most important piece of the people's business" that wasn't being addressed by the current Speaker, Pat Bauer. As Minority Leader in 2011, Democrat Bauer voted for the amendment. He has since switched stances, and said he did so in 2011 only to give cover for Democrats in conservative districts. But that's a long way of saying it really doesn't matter who he replaces them with, but he'd probably go with an old guard pick. Some of the new legislators are in their first or second term and may not have the loyalty for Bosma the elder legislators do. Here's some details via the Northwest Indiana Times.  at the pre-session talk of "this not being a top priority"
notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Could there be any real backlash if this passes in the fall? I'm not up on Indiana politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Could there be any real backlash if this passes in the fall? I'm not up on Indiana politics. Polling is notoriously hard in Indiana due to some laws that prohibit robo polling so even when we have contested races like we did in 2012 with the US Senate, national pollsters tend to keep away or only do private, internal polling. Thrown in that ballot measures are also just more difficult to poll just because of the nature of the beast and it is hard to really say with any reliability what may or may not happen. The only other state-wide elections being held would be Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Auditor which are typically name recognition and party-line votes (though Libertarians make an extra-hard effort with SOS so they can maintain automatic ballot access). I will say that the Indiana Republicans have super majorities in both houses of the General Assembly so there's really no where the Democrats can go but up. But would holding their minority/gaining a few seats be because of HJR-3 being on the ballot or is that just how the political winds shift when you have a handful of GOPers in purple districts? Here's an article/interview with the pollster who conducted the IN GOP poll on HJR-3 (note: This is a poll of only Republicans) : http://www.indypolitics.org/post/73461758670 And a link to the actual poll: http://www.slideshare.net/IndianaBarrister/gop-marriage-poll notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Does Indiana have the rule where undervotes on constitutional amendments count as a "no" vote? That certainly gave a cushion to the Vote No campaign here in Minnesota, on the order of a couple percent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
No.quote:If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
I thought I had seen every argument when it comes to the marriage for man and woman front but this is just crazy.quote:
And of course there is a planned rally in Utah 
Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I thought I had seen every argument when it comes to the marriage for man and woman front but this is just crazy. Oh god our bigots inspired other bigots, I am so sorry  (they're used the same Pink-Blue color code and the picture is from a MPT rally).I loving love the irony of American Republicans using a picture of people with French flags as an example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Stop calling them bigots  they're pro-marriage and pro-traditional family, not anti-gay! Let's take a look at what this Robert Oscar Lopez fellow has to say about upholding the millennia old standard of one-man-one-woman marriage.quote:I cannot blame Russia, India, or any nation for reacting to what they see in the West with measures that I would ostensibly oppose on principle. Russia's ban on promoting homosexuality to children does impinge on free speech. India's ban on sodomy is an intrusion into the sex lives of consenting adults. But we don't live in an ostensible world. We live in a real world, where there are real gay organizations in the West, who are engaging in real machinations to spread their sickness all over the globe. quote:Gay male culture in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and much of Europe is sick. It is literally plagued with disease -- not only HIV (which is rising again), but also syphilis (which has made a comeback). And Michelangelo Signorile, the dowager prince of gay news at the Huffington Post, admitted at long last what gay watchdog groups had been denying for decades upon decades: the chronic, timeless state of the homosexual man is to chase after pubescent boys. quote:The gay men who form the bulk of our community are resourceful to the point of deviousness. They have carved holes in stalls between toilets, developed elaborate secret code for wall graffiti, and learned how to lure boys into sex without being caught. Don't worry though, he's not a homophobe! quote:Do I speak as an outsider? Am I a homophobe? Nope -- sorry, GLAAD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I thought I had seen every argument when it comes to the marriage for man and woman front but this is just crazy. All I see is the same old combination of statistical cherry-picking and BIOTRUTHS. Using that particular sound bite as the point of embarkation might be novel, but when its purpose is solely to arrive at the destination of "one mom one dad!!!", to me this is not new. I'm surprised pro-equality groups haven't seized more on the implication this argument makes, that you're an unstable wreck of a human being if you didn't grow up in a stereotypical 1950s Nuclear Family. I think everyone knows at least a few people who didn't have that growing up, and who turned out to be great people. I certainly do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Apparently, the dude on The Bachelor said that a version with a gay bachelor would be a bad idea, because it sends the wrong message to children. Show's on the same network as Duck Dynasty, so this should be something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
quote:"Doctors Can't Be Essential, Because Some Doctors Are Bad" Ironclad logic...except he left out the part where gay marriage means that straight marriage is Closed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ironclad logic...except he left out the part where gay marriage means that straight marriage is Closed. I've heard the "argument" that if gay marriage is legal, marriage becomes meaningless and so straight people won't want to get married anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Apparently, the dude on The Bachelor said that a version with a gay bachelor would be a bad idea, because it sends the wrong message to children. quote:"I want to apologize to all the people I may have offended because of my comments on having a Gay or Bisexual Bachelor. The comment was taken out of context. If you listen to the entire interview, there's nothing but respect for Gay people and their families. I have many gay friends and one of my closest friends who's like a brother has been a constant in my life especially during the past 5 months. The word pervert was not what I meant to say and I am very sorry about it. Everyone knows English is my second language and my vocabulary is not as broad as it is in Spanish and, because of this, sometimes I use the wrong words to express myself. What I meant to say was that gay people are more affectionate and intense and for a segment of the TV audience this would be too racy to accept. The show is very racy as it is and I don't let my 5 year old daughter watch it. Once again, I'm sorry for how my words were taken. I would never disrespect anyone." Wow, "I have gay friends" and "taken out of context" in the same apology. The language excuse actually might be somewhat legitimate but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Wow, "I have gay friends" and "taken out of context" in the same apology. The language excuse actually might be somewhat legitimate but still. Oh, so he meant to say "gay men are promiscuous". I think I got it now 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
I love how they claim Michelangelo Signorile said something and then don't quote it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
katium posted:I've heard the "argument" that if gay marriage is legal, marriage becomes meaningless and so straight people won't want to get married anymore. Marriage has been meaningless since cohabitation and divorce were legalized. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I love how they claim Michelangelo Signorile said something and then don't quote it. The only thing I found that was even close to what they were talking about is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/tom-daley-is-20-years-younger-than-dustin-lance-black-so-what_b_4397666.html but even that article clearly says quote:There's an undercurrent in these comments -- the "chicken hawk" charge -- that suggests that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse underage teens, the ugliest lie about gay men out there. Hardcore homophobes are predictably pointing to Black and Daley as supposed proof. But many gay men too, so defensive about the charge and deathly fearful of how it's used, overcompensate by saying "yuk." Look, we live in a world where youth and beauty are heralded, and where 77-year-old Bob Dole appeared in a Pepsi ad in which he had the hots for a 19-year-old Britney Spears. We've put an age limit on what we can and can't do because we live in a civil society and abide by the rule of law. And this particular relationship falls well within the limit. So let's drop this crap too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I love how they claim Michelangelo Signorile said something and then don't quote it. Here's the whole thing, it's probably the single worst article I have ever read. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/why_i_cannot_blame_russia_and_india_for_taking_on_the_gays.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Here's the whole thing, it's probably the single worst article I have ever read. Anything on American Thinker will make you sad trust me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Oh god our bigots inspired other bigots, I am so sorry [X] Red [X] White [X] Blue Fuckit, close enough. (But seriously, are there so few "we hate gays" rallies in the USA that they had to go overseas to find a photo?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 20:56
|
|