|
Quorum posted:I tried to read the order but couldn't make it very far before disgust compelled me to click the little red 'x'. Do they provide any justification for why the federal court system is trumped by state courts, or is it literally nothing but They did the same bullshit stunt with interracial marriage. It didn't work then, it won't work this time.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:22
|
|
?
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Quorum posted:I tried to read the order but couldn't make it very far before disgust compelled me to click the little red 'x'. Do they provide any justification for why the federal court system is trumped by state courts, or is it literally nothing but I believe they cited the previous ruling Gays are Icky v. Adam & Steve, et al
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
a total dickwhistle posted:"As to Judge Davis's request to be dismissed on the ground that he is subject to a potentially conflicting federal court order, he is directed to advise this Court, by letter brief, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 5, 2015, as to whether he is bound by any existing federal court order regarding the issuance of any marriage license other than the four marriage licenses he was ordered to issue in Strawser." uh-huh
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I tried to read the order but couldn't make it very far before disgust compelled me to click the little red 'x'. Do they provide any justification for why the federal court system is trumped by state courts, or is it literally nothing but The Alabama Supreme Court posted:what the federal district court has done is to declare an entirely new concept of "marriage" a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution. I guess they're going with "The federal court misunderstood the definition of marriage so their ruling should be discounted."  Some other choice quotes compiled in this article. They're also asking any probate judge who disagrees to write an essay explaining why and to have it on teacher's desk by next Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I tried to read the order but couldn't make it very far before disgust compelled me to click the little red 'x'. Do they provide any justification for why the federal court system is trumped by state courts, or is it literally nothing but Bottom line was that because it isn't settled by the Supreme Court yet, it does more damage to have 'confusion' over the issue, so that's why they are randomly claiming original jurisdiction and shutting down all those gay marriages. Their order asked the one named probate judge in the Federal lawsuit to answer whether he has been ordered to issue any marriage certificate outside the 4 named couples, so they are trying to shut him down as well, but seem to recognize that they people actually involved in the lawsuit get to be married. And the ACTUAL reason for the ruling is because the Supreme Court Justices in Alabama are elected, and have no shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:And the ACTUAL reason for the ruling is because the Supreme Court Justices in Alabama are elected, and have no shame. Yeah, let's be clear here, the Alabama Supreme Court is under no disillusion that they can actually overrule a federal court. It doesn't matter, they like the cake bakers and florists and TV show hosts before them know that they will become Christian martyrs of the evil gay fascists and probably turn it into lucrative political/speaking careers. They would love nothing more than to be dragged into federal court and to be held in contempt/removed from office, all it does is prove them right to the insane bigots that make up their constituency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
I just can't imagine the energy required to be this much of a dick to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
I would love to see what a Show Cause order to a state Supreme Court Judge would read like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
katium posted:I love how the anti-LGBT folks think sodomy is exclusive to gay people. Straight people have plausible deniability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I tried to read the order but couldn't make it very far before disgust compelled me to click the little red 'x'. Do they provide any justification for why the federal court system is trumped by state courts, or is it literally nothing but  gatesealer posted:I just can't imagine the energy required to be this much of a dick to people. Gay people want to get married:  "Does it affect me in any way?" "Nope, have at it then."You don't even have to specifically support gay marriage, all you have to do is not oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The judges are now faced with either violating an order of the state supreme court or violating an order of the federal district court. Both are bad. I don't understand? Does federal courts not trump state courts in the United States? I'm not American so excuse me but I just don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I don't understand? Yes but it's two completely separate mechanisms. It's separate powers, the federal courts can order the state court to do something or not do something, or hold them in contempt or whatever but in the mean time the authorities that answer to the state court have to follow their orders until directed not to by the federal court. Basically the state court are being complete pieces of poo poo, they can issue whatever rear end in a top hat idiotic rulings they want and people would be bound and subject to them until the federal court tells them to knock it the gently caress off. In normal polite society they wouldn't do it because it is a waste of time, completely unethical and will likely get them removed from office but in the mean time they can make things difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:44
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I don't understand? Federal courts do trump state courts, but that does not stop state courts from issuing silly directives or ordering state police to put people under arrest for contempt of court and so on. In the worst case the federal government has to step in with force like they had to during the civil rights era, i.e. "Do as you are told or get carted off to federal prison."  if they go that far though, now that would be a treat. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I don't understand? It's sort of like if your boss told you to do one thing, but the corporate/head office handed down a general directive for everyone to do a different thing. And then your boss doubled down and told you all to ignore the corporate directive. Yes, in the long run, the corporate office is going to win; if nothing else, they'll just fire your boss. But in the meantime, are you really going to defy your boss? It's not an exact example. For one thing, the federal courts aren't really the "bosses" of the state courts. But certainly when they conflict, the federal courts win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
I apologize if this is inappropriate for this thread, but I just wanted to give a heads up to some of the posters on the previous page. The most widely accepted terminology in the trans community is "transgender people", not "a transgender/transgenders" or "transgendered people". I'm not remotely offended by these, but some particularly sensitive people will be. Frankly, I'm just glad to have people on our side. Anyway, for actual content, an article recently came up in my news feed--some sociologists asked same-sex marriage opponents about their justifications for their position: Public Opinion, the Courts, and Same-sex Marriage: Four Lessons Learned
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I don't understand? Where the federal constitution grants greater rights, the federal constitution trumps. Where the state constitution grants greater rights the state trumps. If you're talking about protections that do not directly affect constitutional rights, it depends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:I apologize if this is inappropriate for this thread, but I just wanted to give a heads up to some of the posters on the previous page. The most widely accepted terminology in the trans community is "transgender people", not "a transgender/transgenders" or "transgendered people". I'm not remotely offended by these, but some particularly sensitive people will be. Frankly, I'm just glad to have people on our side. (Sorry to go off topic - that was a pro click link you posted there, though. Go click that, everyone.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Genuinely confused about "transgender" versus "transgendered". Is that because the latter makes it sound like a one-and-done thing, when it's not and it's just a state of being? I try to be up on my terminology and those two are super close (which, obviously, isn't enough to guarantee inoffensive, see all the "nigga" rhetoric racists use) so I don't want to slip and a reason would help me remember. It's because you wouldn't say someone is gayed or blacked or talled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Genuinely confused about "transgender" versus "transgendered". Is that because the latter makes it sound like a one-and-done thing, when it's not and it's just a state of being? Not trans personally, so I can only tell you what my trans friends have told me - it makes it sound like something that has been done to the person rather than a descriptor for who they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
fade5 posted:This still remains the one thing I cannot understand, no matter how hard I try. There's been talk about how opponents see gay marriage as the final straw that will cause God to destroy the US and they must make a show of opposing it to save their family earlier in the thread, but there's one other thing that causes this. I've even heard it from members of my family and there's been politicians who have banged on this drum too. The idea that if gays have the right to marry, then they will walk into your church and say "Marry us right now" and if you refuse, your church will be taken to court for discrimination under hate laws. It's obviously completely false, but people actually believe that this will happen and thus think it will affect them if same-sex marriage is legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:I don't understand? A lot of the state court judges doing this dumb poo poo are from states that have elected judges. What you're seeing is a consequence of how dumb electing judges is as a system. They know they're in the wrong and they'll get the federal courts telling them they're being idiots but their base will lap it up and continue voting them in. This is all a political song and dance for them but with the added bonus of playing politics with the rights of human beings. Yay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:We do not cater to child rapists If someone said that I'd probably assume they believed all LGBT people were child rapists and were trying to end-run that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:A lot of the state court judges doing this dumb poo poo are from states that have elected judges. What you're seeing is a consequence of how dumb electing judges is as a system. They know they're in the wrong and they'll get the federal courts telling them they're being idiots but their base will lap it up and continue voting them in. This is all a political song and dance for them but with the added bonus of playing politics with the rights of human beings. Yay. And the best part is that voting for judges is this horrible cycle where the options are all poo poo, so you either try to aim for the Least poo poo option or just say gently caress it and don't vote. So that means crazy assholes vote for whoever. Which sets the trend of you needing to be a crazy rear end in a top hat to get elected by the crazy assholes who vote because crazy assholes won't vote for anyone else. gently caress voting on judges. It's not like the random citizens know what makes a good job anyway, and they gently caress up more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:I apologize if this is inappropriate for this thread, but I just wanted to give a heads up to some of the posters on the previous page. The most widely accepted terminology in the trans community is "transgender people", not "a transgender/transgenders" or "transgendered people". I'm not remotely offended by these, but some particularly sensitive people will be. Frankly, I'm just glad to have people on our side. That's a drat great read because of how effectively it dismantles the "this isn't about hating gays" talking point. Which, you know, was already ridiculous on its face, but it's nice to have strong evidence. Also loving lol at all the people that didn't understand what "civil union" meant. Kinda wish this study had been done years ago, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, don't want to inadvertantly start an argument in a thread for something else
Reveilled fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's because you wouldn't say someone is gayed or blacked or talled. Or blue-eyed or redheaded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Or blue-eyed or redheaded. Or, you know male gendered or female gendered. You say someone is "of the male gender" or someone is "male gendered", you never say someone "is male gender". This is bad grammar masquerading as political correctness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Or, you know male gendered or female gendered. The English language, noted paragon of grammatical regularity. Alternate smug sarcasm: But their skin is actually colored! Tbh I think it's fair to exert a bare minimum of effort to use terms generally preferred by members of a minority group, to identify that minority group. It's basic human decency, not a slippery slope to either the grammatical implosion of English or the widespread use of bespoke jabber like Lemurian-transethnic griffinkin, preferred pronouns zoink/zoink/zoink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
I know I've seen transgendered people specifically say they prefer being called transgendered and that transgender feels weird to them, like saying "homosex" instead of "homosexual". Similarly, I'm autistic, and really can't stand the "person with autism" phrasing that keeps getting passed around as more correct. Trans people aren't a monolith, and you can't make blanket statements about what they prefer with weird grammatical reasoning. Just stick to what the person you're talking to at the time prefers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:Anyway, for actual content, an article recently came up in my news feed--some sociologists asked same-sex marriage opponents about their justifications for their position: Public Opinion, the Courts, and Same-sex Marriage: Four Lessons Learned Getting around to reading this and this is loving great. Is there a chance this will be a part of any court arguments, or get some publications to pull out quotes from it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Freudian posted:I know I've seen transgendered people specifically say they prefer being called transgendered and that transgender feels weird to them, like saying "homosex" instead of "homosexual". Similarly, I'm autistic, and really can't stand the "person with autism" phrasing that keeps getting passed around as more correct. Trans people aren't a monolith, and you can't make blanket statements about what they prefer with weird grammatical reasoning. Just stick to what the person you're talking to at the time prefers. Seriously this. I'm trans and fine with "transgendered." Now, if an individual says they don't want me to use that word around them, sure fine I won't, but it's really irritating to see broad claims like that the word is inherently problematic or otherwise feel like people are speaking for me, especially when they try to use grammar claims that don't actually make sense as their reasoning. It would be a lot better for someone to just say they think the word has acquired negative connotations, not for any inherent grammatical reason but just as a matter of circumstance, which generally it has (which is why I go with "trans" instead).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Tbh I think it's fair to exert a bare minimum of effort to use terms generally preferred by members of a minority group, to identify that minority group. It's basic human decency, not a slippery slope to either the grammatical implosion of English or the widespread use of bespoke jabber like Lemurian-transethnic griffinkin, preferred pronouns zoink/zoink/zoink. But it's very important that all trans people know they're too stupid to decide what to call themselves and that I'm better at grammar than they are  Very important. Maybe the most important thing ever, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
I don't normally read the in-depth opinions and court rulings posted here, but I'm glad I read that "Four lessons learned" thing (article? Survey? Essay?), if only for this line:quote:We asked a subsampleof respondents, “Can you tell me, in your own words, what a civil union is?” Approximately one-fifth (21%) provided partially or fully correct answers, over two-thirds (69%) gave fully incorrect answers, and the remaining one-tenth (10%) sidestepped the question by stating that they did not know what a civil union is or by making disparaging remarks about same-sex couples in lieu of a definition. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Morter posted:Getting around to reading this and this is loving great. Is there a chance this will be a part of any court arguments, or get some publications to pull out quotes from it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_Brief
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:The English language, noted paragon of grammatical regularity. Alternate smug sarcasm: But their skin is actually colored! Let's not even touch on the use of intrinsic gendering in non english languages. I'm sticking with "transgendered" because the transgendered people I know in real life have expressed a preference for that over present tense or compounded words and its a matter of politeness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I'm sure MLK would be proudquote:Today, the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) announced that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would receive their first ever “Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award” in recognition of Justice Moore’s principled stand in defense of traditional marriage. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Maybe the letter is laced with poison?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Irony is dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Oh jeez. Beyond the "something done to you" implication, another reason a lot of trans people shy away from "transgendered" is because they feel that the past tense part is reminiscent of the popular but incorrect notion that you have a "sex change" and then you've transitioned, when really it's a process that effectively goes on for the rest of your life (even if you are accepted as your target gender and you are done with surgery, you still have to take hormones). Many other trans people, particularly older ones, are perfectly happy with "transgendered", but the reason I brought this up is that while it's fundamentally impossible to define a "correct" term here, the majority of trans people will be fine with "transgender" over any other term. That doesn't require ignoring individual preferences, and you can use whatever terminology you want, but like I said, it is currently the most widely accepted term and I wanted to bring that up for the purpose of awareness, not shaming or correcting. I don't think transgendered is an incorrect term in any way, but it's got some connotations for a lot of people that I wanted well-meaning posters to be aware of. And please, let's not be prescriptivist about language and "correct grammar". THAT I find offensive, as someone with a background in linguistics--language changes, and the only truly correct grammar is that which people actually use and understand. I'm glad you guys also found that article good, and while it's not anything particularly new, at least it's concrete evidence for gay marriage opponents' misrepresentation of their justifications. In all these years, I have never been able to wrap my head around how they could think that any of these arguments against SSM are actually secular or logical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I'm sure MLK would be proud "The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the criminal look like he's a the victim and make the victim look like he's the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. It will make the criminal look like he's the victim and make the victim look like he's the criminal. If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." It's a Malcolm X quote, but I think the individual statement is relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:16
|
|