|
SedanChair posted:This picture of a North Bend, WA couple taking the oath is making the rounds: The reception  
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
If I ever in my life look half that cool, I'll die happy. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
Wow, I want to see how many looks those guys have. Do they coordinate every day, or just when getting married?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wow, I want to see how many looks those guys have. Do they coordinate every day, or just when getting married? I work in North Bend so there's a non-zero chance I might see them someday and find out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
I've been trying to convince my mom that gay people are cool, yo, and she was totally blown away by these guys. Thanks, thread. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
I honestly can't imagine the universe in which you see that picture (or any of these pictures) http://merylschenker.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Gay-marriage-licenses/G0000UgY8lHd476I/I0000Kj7XOS38M.Y and don't instantly reconsider your views on being anti gay-marriage. Look at that first picture on that page I mean seriously. loving seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
It's easy when you've been indoctrinated to only see them as hedonistic monsters, and everyone you know in your family, community and congregation reinforces those notions so you never have to actually meet a gay person in any setting that isn't heckling them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:This is specifically legality of first cousin marriage. States in light blue and light red are the ones that will have exceptions for making sure one of the people is infertile, dark blue is any first cousin s can marry without restriction, provided it would otherwise be legal for them to marry. In North Carolina, the law says that regular old cousin marriage is fine, no infertility requirements or anything, but it specifically bans DOUBLE cousin marriage. So if Jane and Joe get married, and then Jane's brother marries Joe's sister, then their children aren't allowed to get married. Because they're not just cousins, they're double cousins. But if Jane's brother married anybody else in the world it's all good. I really really want to know if this situation ever actually cropped up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's easy when you've been indoctrinated to only see them as hedonistic monsters, and everyone you know in your family, community and congregation reinforces those notions so you never have to actually meet a gay person in any setting that isn't heckling them. The more pictures we have of regular middle-class, middle-aged gay and lesbian people getting married, the more it'll break down people's misconceptions until people realize that the guys in leather chaps don't define all gay folks any more than strippers and johns define straight folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I dunno. I think the pictures most anti-gay folks are familiar with are from gay pride rallies and the like. I mean shucks, I'm totally LGBT-friendly and even I'm not in love with all the craziness from pride parades. (I don't want to see people of any sexual orientation wearing leather chaps and waving around fake dongs, thanks. But I applaud all the nice boring union folks and church groups and people with families marching in the parade.) Sadly for some gays, especially in the south, pride is one of the few events they can go to where there isn't a significant chance of being openly ridiculed or even assaulted for publicly expressing their sexuality in ways that straight people do all the time without thinking. I live in one of the most liberal, tolerant cities in the US and I still have gay friends who have been ridiculed or beaten in public simply for being obviously gay looking. Do you really think that the magnitude of your discomfort at having to see a pride parade in any way compares to what the event means for these people? If you don't like it just don't go, I bet I would be uncomfortable attending a tea party rally but luckily enough like pride parades you usually don't end up at one by accident. Gay people changing their behavior at pride to appease some prudish straight people not only never will happen but it's completely unneeded and probably wouldn't accomplish anything. People are already rapidly becoming more accepting of gay rights despite the fact that every year there are more pride parades. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Oh, I'm not saying anybody needs to change anything, and I recognize the role that pride parades play. Just saying that if the only pictures some people see of gay folks are of the racier parts of pride parades, they're going to cling harder to their misconceptions. Same's pretty true of a lot of ethnic festivals as well: it's a lot safer to sell the image of middle-class people in boring clothes, but fearmongering relies on pictures of Those Scary Brown People cavorting with sweat, beer, and limited clothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I mean shucks, I'm totally LGBT-friendly and even I'm not in love with all the craziness from pride parades. (I don't want to see people of any sexual orientation wearing leather chaps and waving around fake dongs, thanks. But I applaud all the nice boring union folks and church groups and people with families marching in the parade.) That would make sense if the straight equivalent to this sort of titillation wasn't in the media 24/7, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
It gets old with straight people, too. Not saying that's any better. OK, derail over! Back to marriage chat. I hadn't realized that Maryland wasn't going to treat married gay folks as married for tax purposes. Baltimore Sun says: quote:In the meantime, though, Maryland lawmakers' work with respect to marriage equality is not quite done. Although same-sex couples can be wed here starting Jan. 1, they will still be considered as single for state income tax purposes. Maryland is what is known as a "conforming state," which means that absent a specific tax law change, it treats people the same way the IRS does. Comptroller Peter Franchot is examining whether that could be fixed through regulatory changes, but when the General Assembly returns to Annapolis, it should take up legislation to ensure that same-sex couples are treated equally in the eyes of the taxman as well as the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:It gets old with straight people, too. Not saying that's any better. If you don't see something wrong with equating literal constant exposure of heterosexual titillation every time you turn on your tv or step outside your house to maybe 10 minutes of gay titillation once a year if you're in the designated gay-titillation-zone, then I don't even loving know, man. Tim Selaty Jr fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:It gets old with straight people, too. Not saying that's any better. This could also be fixed by the Supreme Court when they rule on DOMA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
rypakal posted:Yes, how else do you expect them to get a majority decision without a fifth vote? There was some talk of 6-3 splits if Roberts tries to be on the right side of history. Kagan wouldn't be necessary if he was a lock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:There was some talk of 6-3 splits if Roberts tries to be on the right side of history. Kagan wouldn't be necessary if he was a lock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Even the liberal New Republic!quote:Gay Americans are in sight of winning marriage not merely as a gift of five referees but in public competition against the all the arguments and money our opponents can throw at us. A Supreme Court intervention now would deprive us of that victory. Our right to marry would never enjoy the deep legitimacy that only a popular mandate can bring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
I'm sure people were just as mad after Lawrence that they robbed of the chance to let people vote on whether their sexual relations were legally acceptable or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:There was some talk of 6-3 splits if Roberts tries to be on the right side of history. Kagan wouldn't be necessary if he was a lock. Roberts is unlikely to vote in favor of gay rights if there's not already a majority that's willing to go down that road. He wants to be on the right side of history, but he also wants to manage partisan opinion of the court and might be squeamish about pissing conservatives off too much by being the deciding vote on gay rights so shortly after he was the deciding vote on PPACA. Similarly, Roberts joining the majority means that he, as Chief Justice, gets to make the writing assignment, so he can try to control who writes (including assigning the opinion writing to himself) in order to have the narrowest possible decision written. Of all the 5-4 against, 5-4 for, 6-3 for scenarios, the one that seems least likely is 5-4 for with Roberts being the deciding vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Interracial marriages didn't have majority support until the 90s. Were black people political losers who ran to mommy, then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Similarly, Roberts joining the majority means that he, as Chief Justice, gets to make the writing assignment, so he can try to control who writes (including assigning the opinion writing to himself) in order to have the narrowest possible decision written. I suspect if Roberts tried to play assignment games to that level here he'd lose the opinion to Kennedy or Ginsburg anyways and basically turn into Warren Burger. oldfan fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
you know what, screw that. Should gay marriage come from the legislature? Ideally yes. But when the legislature refuses to stand up and it continues to allow a group to be unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) discriminated against then it is the Judiciary's job to step in and say "actually these people deserve equal treatment under the law as well"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
I wonder who among the likely pro-equality votes would write the best opinion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Interracial marriages didn't have majority support until the 90s. Were black people political losers who ran to mommy, then? This isn't really true. By the time the Court deciding Loving, only 16 states made interracial marriage illegal. So they were following the majority of the states. They passed up some cases in the 50's right after Brown because there hadn't yet been this movement in the states. That said, I would be perfectly content with a full victory decisions from the SC. I don't expect it, but I won't complain. People saying it would be like Roe v Wade is just ludicrous. Experience shows that public opinion on gay marriage changes pretty rapidly once it's legal and the state doesn't catch on fire. Abortion is an issue with two equally passionate sides and where you can change opinions either way. Marriage equality is a one-way issue that can only get more support as time goes on. Nobody wakes up one day and decides they're now against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Similarly, Roberts joining the majority means that he, as Chief Justice, gets to make the writing assignment, so he can try to control who writes (including assigning the opinion writing to himself) in order to have the narrowest possible decision written. Anyone can write a concurrence and if the other 5 want to sign onto the broad "concurring" opinion and not the majority opinion, they can. Then suddenly the concurring opinion is the majority and Roberts is merely concurring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
rypakal posted:This isn't really true. By the time the Court deciding Loving, only 16 states made interracial marriage illegal. So they were following the majority of the states. They passed up some cases in the 50's right after Brown because there hadn't yet been this movement in the states. That said, I would be perfectly content with a full victory decisions from the SC. I don't expect it, but I won't complain. I'm going by popular view, not state-by-state. Gallup didn't see majority support until about 1994.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I'm going by popular view, not state-by-state. Gallup didn't see majority support until about 1994. Majority support as in approving of it or majority support as in not approving of it being illegal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Majority support as in approving of it or majority support as in not approving of it being illegal? The question is, I believe, "do you approve or disapprove of marriages between whites and coloured people?" Still in the high-forties in 1992, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The question is, I believe, "do you approve or disapprove of marriages between whites and coloured people?" Still in the high-forties in 1992, IIRC. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11836/acceptance-interracial-marriage-record-high.aspx
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
That's just precious how the author thinks that popular mandate will stop homophobes/conservatives/bigots from inventing reasons legal gay marriage isn't legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Illinois legislature will probably vote on a marriage bill in January. I guess the Democrats outside of Chicago could revolt but majorities of 40-19 and 71-47 are pretty good and the Governor is on board. I don't know if there is a law or general policy for delaying laws, but the 2011 civil union law was signed January 12th and went into effect on June 1st.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Illinois legislature will probably vote on a marriage bill in January. Hell yes! Maybe then Wisconsin will feel pressure too due to it's southern neighbor-- Right, Republican government. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hell yes! Maybe then Wisconsin will feel pressure too due to it's southern neighbor-- Wisconsin banned marriage equality through a constitutional amendment, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Timby posted:Wisconsin banned marriage equality through a constitutional amendment, too. loving Hell, Wisconsin. Why do you suck so much now? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Timby posted:Wisconsin banned marriage equality through a constitutional amendment, too. So did Missouri. Then again, I didn't expect much out of this state. It's like most people here saw John Ashcroft losing the senate seat to a dead man back in 2000 and decided "You know what? We're tired of occasionally doing good things." And then voted for McCain and Romney, and sent people like loving Billy Long to congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:loving Hell, Wisconsin. Why do you suck so much now? Now? Wisconsin did that like 6 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
RaspberryCommie posted:So did Missouri. Then again, I didn't expect much out of this state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I suspect if Roberts tried to play assignment games to that level here he'd lose the opinion to Kennedy or Ginsburg anyways and basically turn into Warren Burger. Can you explain what you mean here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
njbeachbum posted:Can you explain what you mean here? The senior justice in the majority assigns the preliminary opinion of the Court at conference. The chief justice has seniority over the Court even when he is not senior on the timeline, and thus assigns all opinions in which he is in the majority for. However, any five justices can break away and form a majority at any time before the opinion is released. This is what happened in the recent health care cases; Chief Justice Roberts switched sides late in the game and was able to get five votes for a new majority opinion, which turned the old majority opinion into a dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Warren Burger was notorious for joining majorities he didn't believe in to assign majority opinions in such a way that it would greatly limit the opinion. He lost some of them, it caused great acrimony amongst his colleagues, and massively reduced his effectiveness as chief justice. The Brethren by Bob Woodward goes into this in great detail. The suggestion here was that Chief Justice Roberts was capable of joining a 6-3 majority specifically to write a limited majority opinion in the consolidated DOMA/Prop 8 cases. The problem is that if the other five justices want to go further, Roberts can't stop them from all joining something written as a concurring opinion, which would make said concurring opinion controlling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:22
|
|