|
gohuskies posted:I agree, Democrats are total sell-outs on LGBT issues. Which is why it was some hypothetical third party, not Democrats, that passed marriage equality in Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and DC. Oh, wait. To be fair it was the court here in CT, but at the same time that's because we had a Republican governor at the time who said she'd veto any gay marriage bill out of the Dem controlled assembly. But yeah one party is considering this year as adding marriage quality to their national platform at their convention, one party runs on a platform of a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. There's kind of a difference between the parties on this issue. Also traditionally GOP dominated states aren't doing so great in employment protection either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg Hell two southern states actually rescinded protections.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Apparently one of the main concerns of people wanting to restrict marriage is that the Caucasian race just isn't reproducing enough these days. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/02/475141/brunstetter-caucasian/ quote:The wife of a prominent North Carolina state senator and supporter of Amendment 1 — a proposed ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the state — claimed earlier this week that her husband advocated for the measure to protect the “Caucasian” race.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Colorado don't let us down 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Doccers posted:"I spent a long time in restaurant business," an emotional Hickenlooper said in a Capitol corridor filled with reporters, lobbyists, staff and onlookers. "A lot of people who helped us create that business didn't have the same amount of rights as everybody else. So basically they have the 1 Republican vote they need to pass it in the assembly and it's just one giant committee filibuster?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Are these really LGBT things? Gay men still make up a disproportional amount of people with HIV, although that's in the US and I assume other first world nations, third world I would assume doesn't have the heterosexual/homosexual divide. As for ACA, not a clue. Although he also refused to sign an executive order written up by his staff to protect federal contract workers against gender discrimination after the failure of ENDA, though a court order last month basically did the same. quote:If I'm reading that right, does that mean that the greyed out blue squares (for example) mean that there's no specific condemnation or acceptance of LGBTs for adopting in the law? It allows for single parents, given every state appears to allow it it's making me think it's probably a federal law? But this does mean a homosexual couple can't adopt together as normal parents, only one of them will legally be the child's guardian, and god only knows what will happen if they find out even said single parent is in fact in some kind of gay relationship.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
ThatsSoNotPLUR posted:Hey everyone I had a disagreement with a friend of mine last night. Where were the first gay marriages in the US performed? She said Massachusetts, I thought it was in San Francisco. SF performed some about a month or two before MA started in 2004, but the legality of those were always in limbo and I think the CA supreme court voided them later in the year. So you're both correct in a way.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Pyrolocutus posted:I didn't see it in my review of this thread, but here's a news article about the first military base same-sex marriage No, read the comment section. Gays are getting married even in our mighty military and there's nothing they can do about it, not just legally but in skyrocketing public approval as well 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Nothing to see here, standard rabid anti-gay Evangelical winds up being gay http://www.advocate.com/society/coming-out/2012/07/27/prominent-antigay-evangelical-blogger-outed-gay quote:Prominent Antigay Evangelical Blogger Outed as Gay On one hand, I really hate people being outed against their will. On the other hand when it's someone who's been spreading hate I tend to care less since these people are seen as some kind of authority on the issue to some people. Which is why I post it here, every time something like this happens, while it won't change the minds of die hard conservatives, I have to think a few more people just look at how ridiculous the homophobic side is, especially since they tend to have so many people who wind up being gay, and then just shake their heads and stop caring about gay marriage, say gently caress it, and then vote for gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Good news from my bleeding heart liberal state, another federal judge has ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional. http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/conn-judge-us-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional#.UBgxuqBwmSp quote:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
A substantial amount of states already allow cousins to be married, apparently the slippery slope argument should in fact be "Look, if you let cousins start getting married, next you'll have interracial couples, then after that you'll have gays getting married!" The procreation argument is just stupid as hell. Under that theory, no one should be allowed to get married until the woman is in fact pregnant, or I guess the couple is in the middle of the adoption process, otherwise you never know, they may be one of those freak couples who decide they don't want kids, and then there goes the sanctity of marriage and next thing you know people will be marrying unicorns.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:For fucks sake if it weren't for "activist judges" we would still have sodomy laws in 13 states, what's your libertarian answer to that? If it wasn't for activist judges we also wouldn't even have a right to privacy. Ain't nothing in the constitution about that, until in Griswold v Connecticut they ruled 7-2 it was implied. They also ruled you can't outlaw contraception. For the love of christ it took activist judges to get the south to stop segregation. That poo poo would've continued probably into the 1980's at the least without them. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Getting the government out of marriage is a stupid goal in of itself because marriage has always been a civil affair
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Ok, well, please go to Somalia and enjoy your increased protection of your civil rights and leave the sane people here the gently caress alone. No, I want him to stay because I want him to back up that assertion. We have 230 years of history as a nation to draw on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No marriage has not always been involved with governments. For many centuries, marriage for most people was simply a religious ceremony and tradition. There is no reason to believe that marriage NEEDS to be approve by a government. Why does the state need to be involved in my personal relationships? Exactly what centuries are we talking about because we can bring up some parts of Lex Julia from Roman times or even go back to Hammurabi's code and see marriage as a civil affair. Marriage exists specifically as a legal contract between people to be recognized under law, marriage for a lot of history especially among the upper class in fact had no real purpose but cementing legal and economic ties between families, and this is still true in many places today. If people didn't seek legal affirmation of their bonds there'd be no point in having marriage period, people don't need marriage to be in love. The whole it's a religious ceremony is such bullshit to try to distract from the inequality issue. Religious ceremony, what religion then? They can't all lay claim to it, especially since marriage predates just about every existing religion. And what about the tons of non religious people getting married both today and 2,000 years ago, null and void? And the slavery thing is a ridiculous strawman that isn't even remotely related to why marriage exists and how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Marriage only has religous trappings because the various religions took over parts of governance over time, and were only recently cast out from it. It's like people don't know that the pope used to personally own and rule large chunks of Europe as a king or prince depending on the exact time period. I think there's more to it than that, I mean religious ceremonies for marriage didn't pop up with Christianity. For religious people they want a blessing of their new bonds, but then again for a lot of history there were also religious blessings/ceremonies for the opening of a new business among other things. In both marriage and opening a business though, most people involved are more concerned with the government recognizing their status, legal rights, property rights, ect than just taking the word of some priest that god blessed you and it's all gonna be good. e: I mean you can see it today, no one is forcing anyone to have their marriage recognized by the state, they can just have a spiritual/religious ceremony, yet everyone has their marriage recognized by the state because we don't live in some abstract libertarian delusion. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The Catholic Church and later Protestant churches that schismed took over from civil-run marriage completely in many countries for centuries at a time. They utterly usurped it from the governments that were there, and in some cases they maintained that hold into the 19th or even 20th centuries. Sure there were religious ceremonies for a long time before, but there wasn't a total religious hostile takeover the institution before that. Yeah you're right, I wasn't really thinking about the fact the church and government morphed almost into one for a good time in western culture, that definitely had some lasting impact to say the least.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Pure idiocy I'm not even going to read the article because I read the title and the fact Lincoln was a racist just like just about every other white person at the time doesn't change the fact the civil war was completely about slavery unless you live in lala land. We don't need some modern analysis, the southern states spell out the perceived threat to slavery as their reason for leaving the union in their various letters of secession. Not to mention southern states gave no shits about state's rights in the years leading up to the war if those rights were in any regard not helping slavery or slave owners. Governments don't allowed sections of their country to just leave whenever there are disagreements, the South started the war and there was no other reason than slavery. Also the precious constitution says many things about joining the union, it says nothing about leaving, so there's also that. e: Sorry thread for continuing this derail, I forgot this was the marriage thread for a moment. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Oh my god, at first I was just going to laugh at mises links, but you actually linked to FreeRepublic, a board full of crazy, seething racists. I guess you didn't see the Freep thread a few below this to know what exactly we think of FreeRepublic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, the reasons for secession of every southern state was only over slavery, There we go, fixed that quote:but the truth is that the war could have been easily avoided and slavery could have still been abolished. Yes, the South could've not committed treason over the right to own people, a right which was never in danger in states it already existed in to begin with. quote:jrodefeld, answer the drat question: are police and judges who would enforce these marriage contracts not, THEMSELVES, GOVERNMENT!? I don't know why this keeps being avoided, minus the purest of pure libertarians, most libertarians would say those are among the only legitimate parts of government.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why do you want government involved in your personal relationship? You've like, never been in any kind of long term relationship where you at least mentally thought about marriage even at least to yourself have you?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I just personally don't want the government involved in my heterosexual relationships. I would assume at least some gay couples feel the same way. No, it's just you. I actually love this fact for this often gets thrown out by straight libertarians who ironically have no problem getting a marriage certificate when it's for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Holy poo poo, I thought they got rid of gay panic defense. D: He was eventually plead guilty as they were gearing up for a 2nd trial and got 21 years, though they dropped the hate crime enhancement. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/brandon-mcinerney-school-criticized-by-both-sides-in-gay-teen-slaying-case.html quote:And what is preventing people drafting contracts that accomplish all these things? Because nobody wants that except crazy libertarians, most of whom are usually straight, white men whose right to marriage is already guaranteed. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You are completely wrong about nullification. Nullification is a perfectly valid tool to reject unconstitutional federal laws. Given that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, the States have no right to nullify the right to free speech for example. The Bill of Rights legally only applied to the federal government at first  Activist judges in the 20th century started to decide the 14th amendment also meant the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Here, wikipedia has a good article on ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights quote:THAT is a fair use of nullification. It is a completely valid concept and has uses today. This isn't really nullification at all. This doesn't work like jury nullification where one person can have charged dropped. This is just states deciding to boycott a federal law. Weed is still illegal on the federal level and they can, and often do, still enforce that fact inside of said states. quote:Are you really comfortable with having absolutely no way to fight against federal oppression? It's called voting, as well as activist judges most libertarians hate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why would you laugh at Mises? Regardless of what I think of Mises the person, Mises.org is not Ludwig von Mises. To sum up Mises.org, well, someone pull up that article where one of the authors there was arguing children should be allowed to legally be sold since they're their parents property. quote:What is your impression of Lysander Spooner's critique of Lincoln and the Civil War? He was a far more consistent and principled opponent of slavery that Lincoln ever was. I didn't read it because it was on Freep, which basically is telling enough. There's the old saying even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yeah Freep doesn't even get that. Why is Freep terrible? Here's 540 pages of why http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552 It's also a good expose of why the Tea Party is terrible since this is the Tea Party in private essentially.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
 The logical end conclusion of Austrian economics in Libertarianville
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy. jrodefeld, noted supporter of being able to buy and sell children.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Thirteenth Amendment made slavery illegal, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, dorquemada posted:I am aware that it freed every slave from New Bern to Morehead City (Union occupied at the time) and I am also aware that the above statement is therefore utter bullshit. Not to mention thousands more on Sherman's march alone and tens of thousands of more every other place that came under or was under Union control. So, once again, you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
I really don't know what's worse, your completely lack of knowledge of why and how marriage works and why people want it, how the Bill of Rights originally worked, how contracts work(or wouldn't work in these scenarios) or your failing at the civil war knowledge down to Lincoln taking executive actions before he was president apparently. This is almost surreal in how bad this is. This isn't even libertarian normal crazy, a lot of us went through an obligatory libertarian phase at one point, but jesus I never had delusions about the civil war or thought replacing marriage with contracts hospitals and poo poo would not honor 1/2 the time(see: gay people and civil unions) was a good idea. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Isn't secession, by definition, tearing the entire nation apart? It was protecting property  Just like real activism is a white guy writing essays at home telling slaves they need to revolt more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about selling children as slaves or the new parents being abusive, we are talking about couples who desperately want to adopt being able to pay the biological parents for the privileged of taking custody of the child. We already have this People can pay surrogates to have children for them, and adoption cost tons of  usually. Selling kids on your glorious free market essentially means girls will be sold to people who will use them as sex slaves and boys will be sent to work on farms or something. Your world has people having a giant incentive to have children and sell them to scumbags as the free market would pay grand sums for being able to legally buy and own kids.Basically, what the gently caress is wrong with you
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To quote wikipedia: Lincoln didn't have the power to free those slaves . The Emancipation Proclamation worked on Lincoln's war powers in war territory. Not to mention, from that article, from the first paragraph of that article quote:The Proclamation immediately resulted in the freeing of 50,000 slaves, with nearly all the rest (of the 3.1 million) actively freed as Union armies advanced.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
It won't happen, but if it did, oh god if Scalia voted to strike down DOMA . One could only hope outside of the issue of marriage this could cause the Tea Party folks to go somehow even more to the right, and nominate people for the 2014 election who make Mr. "Rape babies are god's gift to women" look sane.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Damnit Rhode Island, look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg Stop mucking up the north-east. e: Oh c'mon Rhode Island, your Senate is 29-8-1 with Democrats holding that 29 number, this should be a non issue at this point. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:What I wonder is, who are these 10% of people who changed their minds since the opponents started getting so much air time and for the love of god why? Were they honestly swayed by the arguments of the anti-camp? I find that very doubtful. I reckon they're a bunch of cowards. It's probably the same as in the US, even in anonymous polls people who are actually against say they're for it because they realize it's becoming unpopular to be homophobic. More people are probably just being more truthful now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Hopefully there are some libertarian Republicans in those ridiculous majorities. 26-4, 52-8. There are at least a few. I remember a few years ago Wyoming tried to pass a bill that would make it so they didn't recognize gay marriages performed in other states. It never passed because some Republicans in the senate broke ranks and joined with the 4 or 5 Democrats. I remember one GOP senator wanted an amendment to the bill if it passed providing the funding to erect new signs at all state highways and airports into the state that read "Now entering Wyoming. WARNING: Your rights are in danger"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Isn't the general feeling that they'll actually strike down Prop 8, but in a limited ruling that only applies to California?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Woah  Good job Britain, and I guess good job Cameron for not being a shithead on at least one thing. e: is there a breakdown of the vote yet by party? e2: Did the Scottish and Irish MPs vote? I ask because the bill apparently only applies to England and Wales, and the number of non voting members seems like it'd be close to the number of Scottish and Irish MPs Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Feb 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Ooh, who'll reach final passage first? Britain or France? Another 100 years war will begin over this. Good job though France, you're living up now to the stereotype Americans have of you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
The margins in the MN state legislature are 73-61 and 39-28 according to wiki. Are those wide enough to deal with shithead Democrats who vote no?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
The New Jersey assembly may try to override Christie's veto this summer. Whether they can get enough votes is still anyone's guess. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/22/1625401/new-jersey-legislators-will-vote-to-override-chris-christies-marriage-equality-veto/ quote:In early 2012, lawmakers in New Jersey successfully passed marriage equality bill, but Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed it, claiming same-sex marriage was not an issue of “gay rights.” The legislature has until January 2014 to attempt to override that veto, and Democratic leaders in both chambers announced this week that they will attempt to do just that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 19:50
|
|