|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This makes the goobers who talk about using bacon-dipped bullets to kill muslims even more pathetic, since by even a literal interpretation of scripture that wouldn't be held against anyone who got shot. Isn't there a hadith that basically says something among the lines of "no man can desecrate another" about this exact issue?
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
nonsense bacon is muslim kryptonite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Everyone should try fasting for Ramadhan at least once in their life. You get to eat when the sun goes down, but going all of daylight hours without food or water is a hell of a thing. My record was a week in before my body just wanted to die. Why should you intentionally risk your health for literally nothing? Or did I miss the sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
tsa posted:Why should you intentionally risk your health for literally nothing? Or did I miss the sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
There's no health risk from the fasting part but going the entire day without water seems pretty insane and potentially dangerous. I could probably manage it as a desk job worker but I can't understand how anyone who does anything remotely physically demanding could manage it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's no health risk from the fasting part but going the entire day without water seems pretty insane and potentially dangerous. I could probably manage it as a desk job worker but I can't understand how anyone who does anything remotely physically demanding could manage it. You know the whole siesta thing they do in Spain? They have the same thing in Egypt, especially around Ramadan, for basically the same reason (it's hot as gently caress out).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Fourth Circuit strikes marriage ban in the Virginias and Carolinas
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
The Fourth Circuit in Virginia just issued its opinion striking down the ban on same sex marriage. Since I was beaten, here's an interesting article from today's NY Times on how the concurring opinion from the 10th Circuit's opinion a few weeks ago underscores a potential difficulty for the pro - SSM side: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/us/politics/ruling-poses-potential-obstacle-at-supreme-court-for-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0&referrer= Tl;dr: Not enough animus. Wax Dynasty fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Local news (WTOP) is reporting that the federal appeals court has upheld the ruling that VA's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. Edit, beaten like a rented mule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah, culturally not a ton happens around ramadan because everyone's beat as gently caress from not eating. Without that kind of cultural back-up it would indeed be impossible if you did just about any kind of labor. At the very least, not drinking water all day would be dangerous and after a few days you'd go bananas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Bostic v. Schaefer posted:The closely linked interest of promoting moral principles is similarly infirm in light of Lawrence: “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” 539 U.S. at 577-78 (quoting Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“But ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”). Preserving the historical and traditional status quo is therefore not a compelling interest that justifies the Virginia Marriage Laws. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
These cases citing Scalia dissents will never get old.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
NC's Attorney General won't fight anymore.Roy Cooper posted:The ruling does predict our law will be struck down. It's time to stop making arguments we know will lose. Our attorneys have vigorously argued this case every step of the way, but the 4th Circuit ruling is clear...There are really no arguments left to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
The North Carolinian AG just held a press conference announcing that the state would stop defending the same-sex marriage ban in the courts in light of the 4th circuit's ruling, although they wouldn't start performing same-sex marriages until the supreme court decides whether or not to grant cert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
That seems surprisingly moderate from NC's attorney general. Given how the legislature looks (and the voting body that got it that way), I'm surprised that he was willing to concede the issue without being dragged kicking and screaming. I guess that's what South Carolina is for, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The North Carolinian AG just held a press conference announcing that the state would stop defending the same-sex marriage ban in the courts in light of the 4th circuit's ruling, although they wouldn't start performing same-sex marriages until the supreme court decides whether or not to grant cert. This doesn't make sense to me. What stage is their litigation in, and what's their legal basis for not defending a law but still enforcing it while waiting on a separate legal decision?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That seems surprisingly moderate from NC's attorney general. Given how the legislature looks (and the voting body that got it that way), I'm surprised that he was willing to concede the issue without being dragged kicking and screaming. I guess that's what South Carolina is for, though. Well, for one thing, the attorney general is a Democrat who personally supports marriage equality. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/14/3281897/attorney-general-roy-cooper-supports.html He will almost certainly run against the Republican governor in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Marlows posted:Well, for one thing, the attorney general is a Democrat who personally supports marriage equality. To early to call but I think chances are good the Democratic challenger wins then. Hillary wave and lots of backlash against the NCGA. There's a lot of embarrassed Republicans in the burbs these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:These cases citing Scalia dissents will never get old. I'd rather spend my time attacking the majority for avoiding the obvious conclusions of their opinions than trying to defend the idea that gay people don't need marriage because they don't have unplanned babies. quote:They contend, however, that the state has no interest in channeling same-sex couples' procreative activities into marriage because same-sex couples "bring children into their relationship[s] only through intentional choice and pre-planned action." Accordingly, "[t]hose couples neither advance nor threaten society's public purpose for marriage"—stabilizing parental relationships for the benefit of children—"in the same manner, or to the same degree, that sexual relationships between men and women do." The 4th Circuit dissenter is mad about your serpent tongues! quote:Moreover, the majority fails to explain how this new notion became incorporated into the traditional definition of marriage except by linguistic manipulation. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Tears are a flowingquote:Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a District Court’s decision that struck down Virginia’s constitutional marriage amendment. This action reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the intrinsic nature of marriage and is an injustice to Virginia voters. As Catholic bishops, we once again affirm what our 2,000-year-old faith teaches: that all men and women are endowed by our Creator with equal dignity and worth. We maintain that those with same-sex attractions must be treated with respect and sensitivity. However, by rejecting the state amendment which affirms marriage as the unique institution between one man and one woman, the Court seeks to redefine an age-old institution, rooted in natural law, and extend a right that does not – and cannot - exist between people of the same sex. quote:“Marriage expresses the reality that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life, especially for children who deserve both a mom and a dad. Virginia’s laws have always rightly reflected the true and complementary nature of marriage. A substantial majority of Virginia’s voters approved an amendment to Virginia’s Constitution that affirms that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It’s unfortunate that the court rejected the right of Virginians to define marriage consistent with their concern with what’s best for children and society as a whole. It’s sad that the judges have chosen to disenfranchise the 1.3 million Virginians who legally voted to amend our constitution." - Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia Family Research Council quote:FRC's brief was written by Paul Linton, Esq., a highly regarded constitutional appellate attorney. Linton has submitted amicus briefs on behalf of FRC in several marriage cases around the country, including in the 10th Circuit Utah marriage case. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
I have to laugh at them saying 'BUUUTTT HISTORRYYYYY' when their interpretation of marriage is relatively new, historically. Back in their favorite time, the time of the Bible, marriage was a property exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
To be fair at least back in the biblical days all marriages were between one man and one woman. Among others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
If they're going to go with the biological argument they should be fine with 2 women and 1 man as well, since you can baby like that now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If they're going to go with the biological argument they should be fine with 2 women and 1 man as well, since you can baby like that now. And be against elderly couples, couples in which one or both are for one reason or other incapable, and couples that don't intend to immediately have children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If they're going to go with the biological argument they should be fine with 2 women and 1 man as well, since you can baby like that now. I honestly wonder if the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act would survive constitutional scrutiny if it was challenged these days; there was a clear religious animus in the act to begin with, and religion is a strict-scrutiny issue anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
FINALLY. Great to see my state doing the right thing even if it took ages for it to happen.  Although I'm sure there will be a stay, but for now, I'm gonna celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
They need to stop throwing around that "majority of the voters" line. Based on recent polls if the Virginia amendment came up for a vote today it wouldn't pass. But I guess once The Voters pass something it's etched into titanium for all time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That seems surprisingly moderate from NC's attorney general. Given how the legislature looks (and the voting body that got it that way), I'm surprised that he was willing to concede the issue without being dragged kicking and screaming. I guess that's what South Carolina is for, though. South Carolina had a case on stay pending this ruling so out AG issued the bellow statement. In South Carolina the Attorney General has to defend the State constitution so I guess he can't pull out but the statement reads like he knows they can't win this fight, to me at least. quote:“The Fourth Circuit ruling is fairly lengthy and our attorneys are reviewing its impact on South Carolina and the Bradacs case,” Wilson’s communications director Mark Powell said in a statement. Â “Currently, South Carolina’s law remains intact, and, of course, our office will continue to defend it. Â However, it should be noted that in other circuits, stays have been granted following invalidation of individual state laws, which have caused confusion in those states.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
The 6th circuit case is coming up pretty soon right? Is it a foregone conclusion that I can buy some good booze and be ready to celebrate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This doesn't make sense to me. What stage is their litigation in, and what's their legal basis for not defending a law but still enforcing it while waiting on a separate legal decision? There's IIRC 3 cases currently before NC courts and Cooper's thinking is they'll have to defer to the 4th circuit decision. quote:But the decision means that challenges to North Carolina’s ban would likely succeed in lower courts, according to Carl Tobias, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond. But not to worry, the legislature voted for itself last year the power to appoint outside counsel in anticipation of this very scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Lordshmee posted:The 6th circuit case is coming up pretty soon right? Is it a foregone conclusion that I can buy some good booze and be ready to celebrate? It'll probably be stayed, but yeah. Considering the ridiculous winning streak since the first SCOTUS cases, it's alright to prepare for the good news in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Lordshmee posted:The 6th circuit case is coming up pretty soon right? Is it a foregone conclusion that I can buy some good booze and be ready to celebrate? As of late May, there were GOP appointed majorities in four Circuits. 5th: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi (No date set) 6th: Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee (Hearing August 6) 7th: Indiana, Wisconsin (Hearing August 26) 8th: Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota (Not that far along)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The three judge panel is two judges appointed by Bush 43 and one by Clinton. Don't be shocked by a loss, it doesn't matter anyway. The perfect record since Windsor is great for the public opinion campaign but not legally important. To be fair, a lot of conservative or Bush 43 judges rules for marriage equality in the past. All three GOP judges in the article have ruled against "Christian" bigotry before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Presto posted:They need to stop throwing around that "majority of the voters" line. Based on recent polls if the Virginia amendment came up for a vote today it wouldn't pass. But I guess once The Voters pass something it's etched into titanium for all time. Obviously it was a majority of the people who turned out to vote last time, but was it a majority of the total number of voters (since not everyone will have turned out)? And was it a majority of the people within the state, not just voters? I'm not asking for any particular reason, just curious is all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Obviously it was a majority of the people who turned out to vote last time, but was it a majority of the total number of voters (since not everyone will have turned out)? And was it a majority of the people within the state, not just voters? I'm not asking for any particular reason, just curious is all. The Voting-Eligble Population in Virginia in the 2006 election (when the Virginia amendment was passed) was 5,385,522. In total, 2,328,224 votes were cast on the amendment. Of those, 1,328,537 voted for it. The Voting-Age Population of Virginia was 5,867,219 (which is higher than VEP, since some are disqualified because they are in prison etc). Can't find any census data, so don't know the total number of people in the state, but around 6 - 6,5 million seems like a decent guess, and children don't really matter here anyway. So it was about 44% of the total voters that decided the issue, with about 24% of the total for. There could be adults who never bothered to register to vote as well, throwing off the numbers a bit. But, as they say, decisions are made by those that show up. Source: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2006G.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment GhostBoy fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
KY, MI, OH, and TN will all be heard by appeals court next week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Slightly off-topic, but this thread does veer into general rights for homosexuals at times, so you may find this interesting Ugandas constitutional high court annuls their anti-gay law. It's on a technicality, but better than having that abhorrent piece of legislation in effect. Now they just need to get rid of the poo poo-head politicians that thought this was a good idea in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Slightly off-topic, but this thread does veer into general rights for homosexuals at times, so you may find this interesting If you have Netflix, watch God Loves Uganda. It is a really powerful documentary about who is to blame for this law and the measures the proponents took to get Ugandans to support the law. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Slightly off-topic, but this thread does veer into general rights for homosexuals at times, so you may find this interesting Thank goodness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:If you have Netflix, watch God Loves Uganda. It is a really powerful documentary about who is to blame for this law and the measures the proponents took to get Ugandans to support the law. I just watched this. Holy crap. This did a buttload to affirm my beliefs so I thank you for pointing it out to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
