|
Little Baines Johnson posted:I think it's pretty elegant. It gives gay marriage's opponents unlimited right to bicker about what is or isn't true marriage. We get substantive rights and they get bragging rights. You know how religious fanatics and assholes go on about gays trying to destroy marriage as an institution? That's kinda what you're proposing. Don't you think the reaction to this might be...counterproductive? Twelve by Pies posted:The "marriage should be purely religious" thing seems to be a popular argument of libertarians who think government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. Some thing it should just be civil unions for all and if you want marriage you have to go to a church, and some think that even civil unions shouldn't exist, that marriage can only be given by churches. They fail to understand that even non-religious people support marriage and don't want to abolish it entirely, but hey, libertarians failing to understand something, nothing new there. Not to mention it totally ignores that marriage was a civil institution looooonng before Christianity existed, and has only been religious insofar as religion seeped into everything before the concept of separation of church and state. It baffles me how effectively the religious right has co-opted marriage.
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Because you'd have to get the Government, the Hospitals, the Jails, the Child Protective Services, et al, to ALL agree to that contract. Put another way: Say you're a gay dude, and your would-be husband is terribly injured, lying in a hospital bed wondering if he's gonna die alone. You want to visit him. You have a contract wherein he says "I want this dude to be able to visit me in the hospital." What steps do you take to visit him? Do you walk in the door and hand the contract to the receptionist? If so, what do you expect the receptionist to do? Do you expect the government to have notified hospitals that such contracts must be honored? If so, how is this not just marriage by a different name? If neither of these, then what? This isn't some gotcha, and these aren't rhetorical questions. I don't understand what kind of system you're envisioning when you suggest that same-sex couples write up a contract.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Edit: I actually have a good feeling about SCOTUS review coming up, because I think that the not-completely-terrible justices see the writing on the wall and won't want their names to go down as one of the last votes against a huge civil rights issue. I seem to remember Scalia making comments in the past that he hopes gay marriage never comes before him because he'd have to support it. He's actually gone and said enough poo poo that was originally just satire that I have trouble keeping it all straight. Point is he's not just an arch-conservative rear end in a top hat; he's a formalist robot arch-conservative rear end in a top hat. This might just be some wishful thinking delusion on my part, but I could see him end up ruling for marriage equality on some sort of "technically correct, the best kind of correct" basis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:Blanket judgements of individual worth based on which political sports team a person is on are stupid and childish. This. Regular folks all over the country have been revising their opinions on gay anything. What that senator said seems to me exactly like the "wait, this doesn't actually affect me, oh god these are people too" slow dawning revelation I've watched occur in a number of my friends and relatives over the past few years. Even if he is in fact a conscienceless amoral shell, he's now attempting to simulate basic human decency. At the very least if we want Republicans to collectively accept that people who do things they don't like are still people, we could at least pretend to do the same for them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Wow, I'm surprised we have so many Eagle Scouts in this thread. It makes sense when you think about it. It takes a certain kind of person to think Eagle is even worth going for. The sort of people who actually get it tend to care about serving/making a difference in their community and that sort of thing. Eagle scouts end up overrepresented in advocacy groups same as they're overrepresented in astronauts. I got eagle in 2005. In my batch of kids there were Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. No Mormons at all (gee, it's almost like troop makeup varies with local demographics, who'd have thunk). Would I have been happier if I didn't have to pretend to be religious? Definitely. Is it wrong that atheists get thrown out? Absolutely. But that doesn't make the entire organization worthless. Calling for the BSA to be burnt to the ground rather than, oh I dunno, loving fixed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in spectacular fashion. The number of people popping out of the woodwork to express this opinion despite it being almost totally apart from the thread should at least indicate that the logic of the argument is nowhere near as self evident as you seem to think it is, Thanatosian.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Or how we treat socialized medicine like some kind of crazy future talk akin to flying cars, while virtually all of the 'first world' has instituted it for like half a century. Plus we've had Medicare since the '60s and it works as intended. The response to healthcare is usually a combination of "wait lists," "America is different," and "America's healthcare is better that's why people from all over the world come here for procedures."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What about non-residential buildings? I'm really looking forward to the campaign for Zorblaxian marriage equality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Just a friendly reminder about that guy: The first thing that popped into my mind was that quote from Robert Heinlein: “Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Does this include the part where you started this whole current tangent by linking to how cousin marriage is affected? Because that seems like something that is definitely not on point for a gay marriage thread (unless the cousins are gay, in which case you're still halfway there at best). What if the gay cousins are polyamorous? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
katium posted:Something about "unions similar to marriage will not be valid or recognized by the state." Basically it bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. It's actually broader than civil unions. If I'm reading this right, it works like Virginia's ammendment, banning any past, present, or future legal construct of any name that approximates same-sex marriage. The legislature couldn't even create a new, third-class status just for gays. It really couldn't be any broader without accidentally banning hetero marriage, like the one in Texas did.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Where the hell do these exist? Good god that is fowl. Yeah, this is just unimaginably awful, but at the same time hilarious because I'm imagining what enforcement would be like. Do they have a centralized server listing who has been determined gay, or do parents get a call every time a new teacher finds out ("did you know your child is-" "YES now stop calling me"). What's their standard for gay detection and what does the training that teaches these standards to staff look like?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:... Was just about to say that part was almost Christian, with all the stuff about bearing the sins of our fathers. He's so close to getting it. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Chipp Zanuff posted:So uh, Fred Phelps is close to the end: https://www.facebook.com/NatePhelps/posts/10151924300961765 So what you're telling me is that other members of the WBC are ensuring that he dies utterly alone, cast off by the group he founded and directed? Man, talk about loving poetic justice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
the JJ posted:It is the rainbow pony though so... Actually, y'all should get a :lgbtq: crying flag. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 13:27
|
|
doesn't count.
|
KernelSlanders posted:Interesting, although I don't see how the plaintiffs losing their free exercise claim would invalidate an establishment clause right not to perform a gay marriage. I assume he meant for the purposes of public discourse, ie which anti-equality talking points haven't been publicly dismembered to the point where they even sound dumb to right wingers.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
smilingfish posted:As a law student I genuinely liked reading his opinions because they were well-written and sometimes even entertaining, despite the almost invariably bad opinions. Yeah, he's a brilliant guy who can lay out his reasoning extremely clearly while also maintaining a distinct style and tone. I'd love to read a legal blog by him, in part because he's such an rear end in a top hat. I just wish he weren't on the goddamn SCOTUS.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Ignorance is a pretty easy one. Yeah, and in fact I know a number of people who have literally said "now I know better." Requiring a reason to have switched from an illogical and callous position to a logical and compassionate one (ie reason and basic decency happen to point to the same conclusion) puts people in a strange position. Literally anything with any level of support is better than a position with literally no support. "My friend's cousin says gays marrying doesn't hurt anything" is sufficient proof to abandon the opinion that same sex marriage is harmful, so requiring a reason to change opinion is a weird bar that seems like it's some combination of implicitly demanding they justify the opinion they no longer hold, a sneaky way to pressure people into making cringing apologies, or way to demand people prove they haven't switched to being crypto-bigots at worst. I realize this is an easy thing to say for a cis-hetero white guy from a middle class protestant family, I don't think that's terrible constructive. Understandable, but not constructive. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 23:09 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, but like I said, I hate what the man does and what he stands for - I just think it's possible that it comes from a really, really sad place. That doesn't make him any less wretched of a person, obviously, but it would at least partially explain why he's so insistent and loud about his awfulness. Put another way: he's just talking about feeling a little bad as he parties after Santorum is dragged down to hell by Asmoday and Furfur, who just got gay married in Pennsylvania. He's not saying he doesn't want that to happen. rkajdi posted:Color me surprised. I'd seen the other numbers before, but dismissed them since things like political leaning or religion are fungible. I'm still interested in seeing info if the addition of immigration has had any effect on this, but I doubt we don't gain enough naturalized citizens to move the needle much. Yeah, it's weird. I've talked to some really old folks who, I get the impression, had just never really considered the issue seriously, just sort of dismissed it as some pervert thing. Basically once the movement got going strongly enough they said "oh, wow, they're serious" and then realized they didn't actually give a poo poo. Or it's like my dad where the anti-equality movement just got so blatant with their hatred and prudery that it triggered some deepseated rugged individualist circuitry that made him root for the gays because god drat it this is america and no one can tell me how to live my life.  It's been a really weird process to watch, and I'm pretty proud of him for coming around but at the same time a little  about the reasoning.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:...It will certainly look better if the organization no longer deranks Eagle Scouts who come out once they turn 18 (which, incidentally, is something that has happened at least once since the decision on gay Scouts was made. Not exactly good PR). Jeeeeesus Christ. I hadn't heard about this, and I'm not finding anything obviously related on google. Was it something the council did on its own initiative or was it set in motion by the kid's troop? Ignore me if you think answering would be a derail; I just want to know what level of scouting I need to be ashamed of. It's bad enough to exclude gay adults "for the safety of the kids" but this is nothing but spite of the worst kind.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I like you, let's go get a chicken sandwich together. Only if I can bring my plural wives.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Mind over Matter posted:Man I hope you guys are right. I don't consider myself pessimistic on it, I think the momentum is certainly there. I'm just afraid of something weird happening that none of us could predict and setting it back. I sat here for a few minutes trying to come up with a plausible worst case scenario, and I literally can't think of one that wouldn't still be a step forward, like SCOTUS requiring states to recognize marriages but not actually forcing marriage equality nationwide. Maybe a hefty tax on same sex marriages so only rich gays can get married? VVV That last part. It's pretty clear how the vote will play out. And there's a reason all these rulings are quoting that Scalia dissent: even he knows the jig is up. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
AYC posted:TBH, I wouldn't mind having civil unions or domestic partnerships open to both straight and gay couples as an alternative to marriage. You get a lot of the same benefits but they're easier to get rid of IIRC. Are there any states that have civil unions not open to straight couples? Are there any states that have same sex marriage but not same sex civil unions?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:http://static.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/06/NOM-13A1173-Order.pdf That's amazing. It literally could not be shorter while still being a complete sentence and having all the information.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
Not to mention the false dichotomy implying serving your community and atheism, tolerance are an either/or.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:To Christians it is Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Oh shut the hell up, it was a joke not an invitation to drag the thread down once again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I'm from Virginia and they pretty much did the same thing for us when I took sex ed in the early 90s, basically told us condoms were completely unreliable and that the AIDS virus was smaller than the holes in a condom so even if you wore one you'd still get AIDS, so you'd better not have sex before you get married. I don't think gays were mentioned at all though. quote:Not for the first time, but holy poo poo am I glad I grew up in godless secular New England during the early 90s. I mean I think they did pay lip service to waiting being preferable, but they at least did tell us how to use birth control and didn't lie about where STDs came from or anything. Goddamn. I also grew up in virginia only a few years later and they gave us actual failure rates for all the common forms of birth control--best case and what it tends to be with the general population--and detailed the various ways you could catch the different STDs (eg you can get gonorrhea in your eyes). They didn't mention gays directly but they did talk about how things like HIV transmission rate varies for different sex acts, to include anal, again giving actual numbers. Turns out states aren't monolithic, and individual counties vary wildly. Who knew.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:And it was against my state While I understand how you feel, as a Virginian, I would be thrilled if my state added to its record for dragging the country kicking and screaming along the road of social progress totally by accident. Bring on Son of Loving: Love Harder. Let the bigot tears flow, and the "Virginia is for lovers" hats sell like hotcakes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
zachol posted:I know I shouldn't be, but I'm actually surprised people are making such a big stink about this. "Government contractors" seems like a fairly narrow group, and they should be used to dealing with more stringent conditions than other companies. Reminder that "Contractors" includes the entire military industrial complex, and that's just a subset.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Honestly, because I'm now slightly interested. I currently work overnight shifts, meaning I sleep through most of what would be daytime as a necessity. Would someone like me just do an inverted schedule of the day to keep up the tradition? As I understand it, the prophet was pretty explicit about god wanting a good faith attempt. You can break fast if you're doing some sort of crucial work, like search and rescue after a disaster, and you can violate the various dietary rules if you're, say, starving in a desert and have no halal options. These aren't even seen as sins of necessity that you're expected to atone for later; for any non-crazy sect the rule is literally "do the best you can." 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Same here. The doublespeak conservative Christians have developed to cloak their bigotry in the wake of the absolute rout they suffered during the Civil Rights Era is impressive in its sinister way. It's not just the Christians. Look at how many people mistakenly call at-will employment "right to work" because they're so used to dishonest names from the labor-haters that they matched that name with the opposite of working (being fired).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I read it as a complaint re: the terminology "right-to-work" being the opposite of the thing it is applied to (at-will), not re: the mistaken conflation of the two, particularly since it was in the context of doublespeak. His interpretation is what I meant.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Fair enough, my mistake! One love, bruddah.  FlamingLiberal posted:A Broward judge in FL is going to rule today in the case of a lesbian woman who wants a divorce, in that she wants her marriage recognized by the state so she can get out of it. You can't make this poo poo up. I mean, it makes legal sense, but it's such a surreal situation. This poo poo is exactly why SCOTUS needs to sort it is gently caress out. I kinda suspect we'll see some former opponents giving up specifically because of the bizarre, byzantine legal quagmire. "OK, fine, gays can marry. Now can we please move on to the question of whether corporations have the right to euthanize employees??"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I suspect that for many, opposition to LGBT rights is based around a tradition/"more conservative than thou" type of group-think than anything else. I think It's a combination of this and thinking about gays as a faceless, impersonal, monolithic, hotpantsed hive mind. When faced with an actual human being, human decency often wins out, at least enough to grin and bear it when face to face. That and the "he's one of the good ones" phenomenon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Friendly reminder that Mark Herring won by only 907 votes. Without him, none of this would be happening in Virgina. Voting makes a difference. I live in NoVA, and in the state senate race a few years back the difference in votes between the winner (an uninteresting democrat) and the loser (literally adolf shitler) was thirty votes. This is not hyperbole. Three zero. That's the one detail in this story I'm 100% certain about (aside from the republican being utter poo poo). One traffic jam near a polling place, one guy posting on facebook to remind his friends to vote, or one polling place closing early could have changed the outcome and we'd have gotten a religious fanatic instead of a ho-hum moderate. Anyone who tells you that the two parties are indistinguishable or that your vote will never change anything is wrong. Teddybear posted:I guess, in a bit of a turnabout way, it's Virginia's attempt to redeem itself after Loving? A bookend? I've said it before, but nothing would make me happier than Virginia continuing its track record of accidentally bringing the whole country forward.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I can't wait to get home Friday to meet my mandatory gay husband. And next month I can gay marry my under-eighteen dog!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Indiana and Wisconsin each filed a brief today asking SCOTUS to settle this issue once and for all. We're now at 34 total states who've done that in under a full week. As I understand it, SCOTUS isn't currently in session. Anyone mind explaining/guessing at the earliest they could comment on which, if any, case they plan to accept? Also, 34 seems like a lot. How common is it for that many states to be asking SCOTUS to take up an issue? Even the Roberts court can only ignore the writing on the wall so long...right? Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
logger posted:Wouldn't the fact that her name was recognized as legally changed in California carry over on a federal level? So even if Texas doesn't acknowledge the marriage federal records should show her legal last name to be Wilson and should be acceptable by any legal standard. You seem to be assuming they operate under a good faith interpretation of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because like civil rights, many of the gains are an illusion and will vanish within a generation. Can you give me an example of this happening anywhere ever? Edit: didn't notice the star in the post above mine. I was blinded by all the motion. Please ignore this post if that was an official modly "gently caress off."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
berserker posted:Wyoming's ban just fell. That makes 32 plus DC. One more and we're at 2/3rds of the states, ladies and gentlemen. Holy poo poo. I love how little noise all this is making. This feels like that part of Apollo 13 where we've gotten so good at landing on the moon that none of the TV stations bother covering it. Does that make sense to anyone besides me?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Naw, the pro Scalia troll would be to agree with the majority and then write a concurring opinion that this was his plan all along. Having just finished rereading Transmetropolitan, I'm all for being allowed to gay marry internally sanitized Russian werewolf prostitutes. The future is now! Seriously, that ruling is so bizarre my brain is parsing it as satire. I'm impressed the judge who wrote that dissent didn't pop a vein in his head and hose down the courtroom.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 04:52
|
|