|
The Battle Axe posted:The article I read on The Huffington Post stated the governor is expected to sign it. I'd link to it if I had access to my laptop, sorry. Considering he helped shepherd it through, it's not a surprise that he's signing. IIRC, the bill doesn't take effect until January 1, 2013, though.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
The "trap" is that marriage has been a legal contract from the beginning, and that phrasing surrenders it to be a purely-religious term.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Re: abolishing governmental role in marriage, my parents were married by a judge in my dad's living room, and my mom told the judge "No God stuff" before the wedding. The "make marriage a solely religious thing" people would effectively be telling my parents that they aren't really married, and I've always found the argument pretty offensive as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:By which you mean, here we wait for a few months? Exactly. Plus this is the less interesting one. Any word on the DOMA case?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They're reviewing those as well: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-to-take-up-gay-marriage-cases The plot thickens. With Prop 8 a decision upholding the 9th's very, very narrow rationale is likely, but the Court can't hide on DOMA. Edit: or they say Boehner et al. don't have standing and hide on DOMA anyway. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
If you're not familiar with Seneca Falls, please take a moment to read the Seneca Falls Declaration. It's really something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I can't wait to see the "Uruguay sounds like You Are Gay" jokes that'll spark in some of my South American friends. So Uruguay will now have legal same sex marriage and legal marijuana. Maybe it will replace the Netherlands as the Sodom du jour among US conservatives? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
ixnay posted:Is that a plurality of all registered voters or something? So basically someone that doesn't vote counts as a "no"? That's exactly what he means. Abstention (not bothering to vote, in this case) equals a vote against marriage equality under Oregon's rules. Edit: I...think? I've been told that and I think it's come up before in this thread, but I'm not finding a lot of material backing it up online. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I thought they got rid of that requirement. It appears you're right and my memory was outdated, Oregon got rid of that in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_56_(2008) Just a simple majority needed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
ENDA will never be voted on in the current House, but the fact that it passed in the Senate in its current form shows that times have already changed substantially. I wouldn't be surprised if ENDA would actually pass the House as is and that's exactly why Boehner doesn't want to vote on it. The trans inclusiveness is not preventing passage, Boehner not wanting to give Obama any legislative victories is preventing passage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
ENDA is going to happen eventually. The very fact that a trans-inclusive ENDA passed the Senate with 64 votes, including unanimous Democratic support and even the support of some very conservative Republicans like Pat Toomey, shows that it's no longer truly controversial. Boehner's refusal to bring it up for a vote is a sign of weakness for that position on this issue: if the House took it up it would likely pass comfortably with a fair amount of Republican support. It's a shame that ENDA is being held hostage to the whims of a House Leadership that is bound and determined not to let the President have anything resembling a win and is willing to deny millions of people rights in order to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Wouldn't Sotomayor normally refer something like this to the whole court anyway? What does it take, four votes to hear the case? I suspect they would get that, or is Roberts trying to stay clear of the whole thing and let it play out in the lower courts and states until everyone realizes the momentum is unstoppable? On that note, I saw Fox News asking how the Republicans are going to run an anti-marriage-equality candidate in 2016, when that position is so far outside the mainstream of young and middle-aged voters. They're debating over a stay, not over taking the case. The case would still need to make it through the 10th Circuit before the Supremes weigh in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I believe these are the passages generally used to support that: As a counterpoint: Jeremiah 1:5 posted:"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah's obviously talking metaphorically about Israel as a collective entity, rather than about an individual, but that's sure an implication that he thinks that something's a living entity before it's born. Just saying that saying that "the Bible says x" about any issue is usually oversimplifying and you can take a passage to use to mean the exact opposite of that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Ya wouldn't the 6th upholding the ban actually be a good thing in the long run because it would guarantee scotus takes one of the cases at the earliest opportunity? At this point the question is more whether SSM will be legal everywhere in 2015 (goes to the Supreme Court after a circuit split) or 2016-17ish (all the lower courts individually rule for SSM, no need for the Supremes to weigh in). The 6th would, as you say, actually expedite the process.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Thesoro posted:Considering the ridiculousness of the modern Republican party, it's extremely unusual to see a member in a position of power in Texas take such a fiercely positive stance toward equality. To pretend that he's not an exception is delusional. The position of big city mayor has very different incentives, though. Especially in a state as business-obsessed as Texas, the first and foremost thing every candidate for a big city mayor position has to do is swear to do everything possible to attract companies to their city, increase the tax base by bringing in desirable people and new jobs etc. Homophobia has become toxic for that argument: any company with a gay guy on its board of directors will likely go "no thanks, let's try somewhere else" if the mayor of a city they're considering relocating to goes all George Wallace in blocking off marriage licenses by standing in the hallway. Statewide candidates have very different incentives, as they're running more ideological races that aren't centered the same sort of issues. Also, of course, rural politicians like Louis Gohmert are a totally different ballgame as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
emfive posted:For those not familiar with the mutilations perpetrated on English in Central Texas, the county surrounding San Antonio, "Bexar County", is locally pronounced "Bear" It sounds more like Bayer, the aspirin makers, to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:The head of Florida Family Policy Council Um...does he think that there aren't any black gays?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Mr E posted:Those brave Christians, standing up for their brave beliefs in the front of that danged homosexual agenda! I still wonder why marriage is between one man and one woman when they call Solomon wise who had "around 700 other wives and 300 concubines". Solomon's pretty roundly condemned for that through I Kings, though. He bankrupted the kingdom on them, built shrines to alien gods that removed divine favor (and the catastrophic reign of Rehoboam that is attributed to said lack of divine favor), and the line in Deuteronomy that a king should not have too many wives is clearly a sign that this behavior was not ok. Solomon wasn't intended to be a role model, as much as " Wise as Solomon" hit proverbial status.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Alternately, you could join one of the dozen denominations of Eastern Christianity in communion with Rome, like the Greek Catholic or Uniate Church, which doesn't require celibacy. Of course, most people forget that the Roman Catholic Church isn't the only Church the Pope heads.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Most "Christians" aren't really even christian in terms of actually following the New Testament, which is why a lot of people considering Paul the founder of the Christianity, as people tend to follow his tenets more than the actually the ones laid out in the NT. What? Paul's writings or writings attributed to him make up about half of the New Testament and are considered just as canonical as the Gospels. Saying "The Gospels should be held above the epistles" would be a hugely unorthodox statement in any century's Christianity, I don't see what the point you're making is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Going to say I always heard somewhere between 10-15 AD as estimates for Paul's birth. If he were born in 35-38 AD like some people here are suggesting, that would have made him like 12 during the critical scenes about him in Acts, which would make all the famous paintings of him as a bald bearded man hilarious. Having God knock you off your donkey on the road to Damascus really ages a man. ~10 AD works well for having him be a few years younger than Jesus' kid brother James and Jesus' right hand man Peter, but not so much ridiculously younger than them that it would be weird for him to suddenly rise to near the top of the group. I always thought that there's a great opportunity for a comic skit about the time that Paul first met James and told James that he just ran into James' dead big brother, who chewed Paul out, forced Paul to change his name, and worship him as a Son of God. James would probably be confused as hell. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Well, there's two different high-profile press-heavy cases still out: this case, Obergefell, and King v. Burwell, the "Do we want millions of Americans to see their health insurance costs quadruple overnight just to be a dick to Obama" case. More and more I'm suspecting that Obergefell will be the last case of the session just to try to distract press attention from King v. Burwell, i.e. give out King next Friday and then Obergefell the following Monday. It's actually kind of tragicomic that the Republicans are now in a position where they're outright dreading winning King v. Burwell because of the national shitshow that will follow. I think GOP politicians would be thrilled to have the situation where gay marriage steals King v. Burwell's press thunder for a few weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Scalia has actual venom, but Thomas' "no one in 1787/1791/1868 wanted to extend the right of marriage to homosexuals, therefore no" originalism is his core bedrock stopping point. If Thomas writes a dissent, it won't include all the "also gently caress the homos" stuff that Scalia's will, it'll just stick to the above...for Thomas there's no way around that unless you found some Senator's diary from 1868 saying that same sex marriage was a natural and intended consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment. EDIT: What's the over-under on Scalia quoting Lord Blackstone saying that sodomy is an infamous crime against nature not fit to be named? Patter Song fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
It'll be interesting to see how the first few people in various states actually go about the process of getting married. How long will some of the states keep trying to block the inevitable? Congrats, gays. You earned this one. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:29
|
|