|
 Reagan was more left-wing than any politician in America today or in the 90s. So that's actually supporting Steak's idea.Of course, America was more left-wing than now at pretty much any date after WW2 (the 50s being an ambiguous point but we didn't have people trying to dismantle Social Security then so  ), so...
ungulateman fucked around with this message at 12:25 on May 20, 2012 |
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/14/how-straight-marriage-s-evolution-led-to-obama-s-gay-marriage-endorsement.html This is a good summary on how societal conception and legal precedent have led to the point where marriage equality is even a thing Also the hilariously bigoted comments are greatly outnumbered
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:
I think you're forgetting about the 1920's and Calvin "claim to fame was breaking a Police strike" Coolidge.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:
Oh yes, the years following World War I were truly a heyday for the American left.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
So, probably the most famous Filipino in the world (as well as a top Boxer and Congressman in the Philippines), Manny Pacquiao, has been preaching fire and brimstone about gays and condemned President Obama for his 'evolution' on the topic. The shocking part? How much negative backlash I've been seeing in both articles and comments about Pacquiao's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:So, probably the most famous Filipino in the world (as well as a top Boxer and Congressman in the Philippines), Manny Pacquiao, has been preaching fire and brimstone about gays and condemned President Obama for his 'evolution' on the topic. The shocking part? How much negative backlash I've been seeing in both articles and comments about Pacquiao's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
He's backpedaling now and the original leviticus quote attribution is being denied. Still, that sucks. I really like him as a boxer.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Apparently he didn't quote Leviticus (the original article was updated) and he's just opposed to same sex marriage. Pacquiao's gay relative is a variation of "I have black friends, so how can I be racist?  ". Still, even without the Leviticus part, he's projecting his terrible opinions onto the general masses because of his popularity as a Boxer, which certainly isn't helping gay rights.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
It's not surprising that a dumbass Senator from a rough province would believe or say something this stupid, though since everyone believes the current President there is gay and Manny recently left his party over what's believed to be a dispute over failure to help Manny dodge taxes or something, there may be another angle to this sudden need to declare it loudly and publicly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:
I know we like to compare the insanity of today's Republican party to Reagan and point out how he wouldn't get very far in the party today, but let's not go nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Can't wait to see Pacman vs Mayweather, with John Waters, Elton John, and Ted Allen bringing Floyd's belts out.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:It's not surprising that a dumbass Senator from a rough province would believe or say something this stupid, though since everyone believes the current President there is gay and Manny recently left his party over what's believed to be a dispute over failure to help Manny dodge taxes or something, there may be another angle to this sudden need to declare it loudly and publicly. Yea Manny's a huge shitbag so I doubt anyone's shocked 'oh the tax cheating piece of poo poo is also a homophobe'.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea Manny's a huge shitbag so I doubt anyone's shocked 'oh the tax cheating piece of poo poo is also a homophobe'. It's may just be me but I don't usually assume tax evasion is linked to being a homophobe.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:I know we like to compare the insanity of today's Republican party to Reagan and point out how he wouldn't get very far in the party today, but let's not go nuts. Hyperbole? On the Internet? Say it ain't so! (The point remains that a lot of 'liberals' in America today are more right-wing than Republicans of years gone by like Reagan, let alone actual liberals like LBJ.)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
What is the explanation behind the perception that blacks as a general demographic are opposed to gay marriage?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:What is the explanation behind the perception that blacks as a general demographic are opposed to gay marriage? Their voting record for proposition 8, among other things (70% opposed to gay marriage): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-besen/proposition-8-and-race_b_142147.html However, after controlling for party allegiance, church attendance, education, etc., they apparently are (edit:) *not* significantly more anti-gay than other races: http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13832
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
^^^^edit: I totally misread the question. Yea in actual application they're no more anti-gay than any other group in the same overlaps of culture.Inspector Hound posted:What is the explanation behind the perception that blacks as a general demographic are opposed to gay marriage? In the big picture black and hispanic people tend to lean social conservative in general, but usually in the scale of 'well I personally wouldn't do this' rather than 'Gotta vote this poo poo out'. The gay stuff gets hit because a large amount of the black population is religious, and in many black communities the church plays a more involved role in the life of the people than in white areas, especially in the south. evilweasel posted:It's may just be me but I don't usually assume tax evasion is linked to being a homophobe. Well in general I meant he was a scumbag with the general 'shitbag' statement, he doesn't do much ILLEGAL poo poo aside from tax evasion but he does/says a lot of general scummy stuff. Yea that was poorly placed though. Basically Manny has a big mic and it sucks he's saying this poo poo, but the drawback of him being him is most people know 'heeey you're kinda a dirtbag already bro maybe I don't give a poo poo what you think about morals'.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Seems like Rhode Island is off the table for this year and the Governor's executive order to recognize out of state marriages was not a starting point but the only thing that could be done this year. The votes are probably there and the civil union bill is wildly unpopular (only 52 licenses have been issued) and actively opposed by all LGBT groups, but nothing appears to be happening because Leadership is terrible. The Senate President is very opposed to same sex marriage and the House Speaker is openly gay but couldn't get his poo poo together to oppose an amendment allowing Catholic hospitals to ignore civil unions e: Didn't even take a day for Money to see this could be good PR. Mayweather is the best. 
UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 08:29 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Now I REALLY want that fight to happen. Go Mayweather. And a Grantland Open Letter to Manny quote:I'll tell you what helped me survive, Kuya. The team of friends, teachers, and family — even a priest! A Catholic priest! — who coached me that my need for partnership was as natural as your union with your wife. The barkada who put their hands on my shoulders in my own tough corners and taught me again and again this lesson: God did not intend for any of us to move through this life alone, gay or not. Nybble fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Maryland's highest court rules that gay marriage licenses issued in other states must be recognized by the state government of Maryland:MetroWeekly posted:Lesbian Couple Can Divorce in Maryland: Court Rules State Recognizes Valid Same-Sex Marriages Performed Elsewhere
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
I like the irony: the thing that allows a bunch of gay marriages to be recognized is the dissolution of another
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Riptor posted:I like the irony: the thing that allows a bunch of gay marriages to be recognized is the dissolution of another It's ironic, but it's actually a huge problem for couples who got married in one state, then moved elsewhere and broke up. Since their new state won't recognize their marriage, they won't give them a divorce - and since they're not a resident of their old state that one won't either. So they're trapped in a weird limbo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:What is the explanation behind the perception that blacks as a general demographic are opposed to gay marriage? Anti-gay marriage groups have been repeating this as much as they can over the past few years, because this perception helps their cause. It's partially an attempt to pit gays against racial minority groups - which is one of NOM's explicit goals; evidently they've never considered that black people and Hispanics can be just as gay as white folk - and partially a shield that they can use against criticism. "What do you mean, our views are prejudiced? Black people agree with us!"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Rhode Island has some evil Senators who introduced a bill to override the Governor's order to recognize out of state marriages.quote:RESOLVED, By this General Assembly that the public policy of this state discountenances the marriage of same-sex couples, and that our public policy in this regard overrides any obligation of full faith and credit inasmuch as it regards a matter of paramount importance to the citizens of this state.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Anti-gay marriage groups have been repeating this as much as they can over the past few years, because this perception helps their cause. It's partially an attempt to pit gays against racial minority groups - which is one of NOM's explicit goals; evidently they've never considered that black people and Hispanics can be just as gay as white folk - and partially a shield that they can use against criticism. "What do you mean, our views are prejudiced? Black people agree with us!" To wit, "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are black!"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Rhode Island has some evil Senators who introduced a bill to override the Governor's order to recognize out of state marriages. Wait they are claiming that the public policy of Rhode Island overrides the the constitution? Its not even an amendment, full faith and credit is part of the original document.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Wait they are claiming that the public policy of Rhode Island overrides the the constitution? Its not even an amendment, full faith and credit is part of the original document. Yeah, but if I recall correctly, FF&C only applies to actual judgments of law. For other stuff, courts can override sister state legal poo poo if the forum state views it as repugnant to local policy. Federal courts have been extra deferential when the matter involves family law. I think. My memory of this entire subject is a bit hazy.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Hyperbole? On the Internet? Say it ain't so! By what metric? No one's arguing that there were pockets where liberalism had more push but you're suggesting a very strange notion right here. By what metric is Reagan more liberal than literally any and all politicians today in America? Are we counting congress? I'm sure you could find more than a handful in the right states like Massachusetts or California. If Reagan was more liberal than anyone today why is the only serious push for gay marriage that has a chance of succeeding actually happening today and not during the Reagan years? Don't romanticize the past out of a legitimate desire to prove that politicians could afford to lean a little more to the left.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:By what metric? No one's arguing that there were pockets where liberalism had more push but you're suggesting a very strange notion right here. He's most likely talking about spending priorities, and he's right. Then there's Social Security. On far too many things, the Democrats of today are like the Republicans of yesteryear. Which means, the Democrats are all about the holding action, yet slipping further right all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
A lot of people get "Reagan" confused with "the laws that got passed while Reagan was president". Jim Wright was a very good speaker of the house and Democrats controlled the Congress. Just because Reagan signed a law or budget that the Democrats passed doesn't mean that he personally agreed with it. The whole "Reagan is more liberal than Obama!" is based around this misconception. Reagan is not personally more liberal than Obama, but the Congress under Reagan was more liberal than the Congress under Obama, and the Congress, not the President, is who passes the laws. There's some great books about Jim Wright's Speakership that go into great detail into the conflicts between Reagan and the Democratic Congress and how laws actually got made then.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
The NAACP is officially supporting same-sex marriage. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/19/487265/breaking-naacp-endorses-marriage-equality/
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:The NAACP is officially supporting same-sex marriage. "An historic moment." 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Boxman posted:Yeah, but if I recall correctly, FF&C only applies to actual judgments of law. For other stuff, courts can override sister state legal poo poo if the forum state views it as repugnant to local policy. Federal courts have been extra deferential when the matter involves family law. This is correct, the FF&C clause is weird with regards to marriage since it is not among the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Therefore, marriages are recognized as a matter of convenience, not constitutional principle under the FF&C clause. Divorces, however, are judicial proceedings and therefore must be recognized - see the news about Maryland above. None of this will matter if the Supreme Court rules that SSM marriage cannot be denied under the Equal Protection Clause.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:"An historic moment." That's actually the correct choice of article. It bumps me every time too. It has to do with the legacy of H'es not always being pronounced. So the H is ignored, and they treat "historic" like it starts with an I in the calculation of a/an.  I think in the modern day grammar nazi's will be all up in your poo poo if you use "a historic moment," but I think both are viewed as correct.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Yeah, an historic moment is correct. Also, thank god, that's another dumb talking point the anti crowd just lost.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
ErIog posted:That's actually the correct choice of article. It bumps me every time too. It has to do with the legacy of H'es not always being pronounced. So the H is ignored, and they treat "historic" like it starts with an I in the calculation of a/an. Welp, I also didn't know how to use "its" correctly until my 3rd year of college, so this hardly comes as a surprise to me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
If all the recent endorsements lead to significant efforts in the fall, Maryland might not be a total disaster. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
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. VV: thanks ThatsSoNotPLUR fucked around with this message at 01:16 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:17
|
|