|
Valie posted:It's the exact opposite, actually; voting for a third party will in almost all cases amount to more than voting for the republicans or democrats. Can you point out precedence of this that's younger than a century or so?
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you think the major cause of the rightward shift of the country between 2000 and 2004 was a few thousand Nader voters you are probably age ten or an idiot. It's not so much a rightward shift as the lack of a leftward one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Ah, alright then. We can add that to the (small but slowly growing) pile of "good poo poo Obama's done." The reason the Supreme Court hasn't heard this case is that it takes a minimum of four justices to approve hearing a case, and the one guy that flip-flops in the 5-4 decisions (Kennedy) could literally go either way depending on the case, so it's not something that either the progressive or conservative wing of the court (or people in general) really want/ed to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I think they're also saying that it must be only whites who are being gay. Or maybe that if gay people are straight instead they'll have white kids no matter what. To be fair to them, there is a trend in the media in portraying homosexuals as white and/or downplaying minority homosexuals.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 09:52
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Just saw this and wanted to post, cause it's a great lil graphic 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?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
Reagan was more left-wing than any politician in America today or in the 90s. So that's actually supporting Steak's idea.
|
The Oldest Man posted:The hippies of the sixties (baby boomers born in the late 40s and early 50s) are not the same generation as people born in the sixties who turned out in droves for Reagan. The hippies of the sixties are also not the same as the people in the same generation who were still pretty drat conservative.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:What happens when part 3 of DOMA is struck down? If I get my gay marriage on in a nice state, is my federal recognition only applicable while I am in the select few states that have enacted marriage equality? As soon as I move or even take a road trip from MA to say FL, the federal gov't no longer considers me married? I assume it means that any federal benefits stay with you but any state benefits would vary based on the local laws.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:So what if marriage isn't wholly religious? If marriage wasn't state-supported, there would be no reason why any group of people, be it a church, community organization, or group of people, couldn't recognize a couple as "married". If you could magic away the cultural implications behind marriage sure, everything would be fine, but you can't. This is also why attempting to make offensive slurs meaningless is a Bad Idea and doesn't work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Just got back from a truly surreal experience. Had Sunday family dinner at my overwhelmingly conservative father's household to find out that everyone of registered voting age voted for WA State's R74. And half of them even voted for marijuana legalization. This is a Fox News household. I'm not even sure what to make of all this. Western conservatism has traditionally been "leave me alone, but do whatever the gently caress you want" in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:while that may have been true at one point, that hasn't really been the case (in the U.S. at least) ever since conservatives got in bed with evangelicals. No, even then the Western US has traditionally been less religious than other parts of the country. Mind you, in the past decade or so some religious conservatives have been thumping stuff up (there was a 10 Commandments battle I remember) but in general you're more likely to be shot for raising taxes than being a Muslim.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea except for all those western conservatives who want constitutional amendments to ban me from ever getting married, want to criminalize being gay and ban me from being around kids ever, try to literally ban mosques from being built ever, and try to force women to give up agency over their reproductive rights. They do now, but traditionally they didn't. In fact, things like medical marijuana was allowed at the state level for a very long time. You are aware which states I'm specifically referring to, correct? I said nothing about the South. e: that being said, yes, the Mormons are a very large influence in the region.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:He's talking about the western states as well, and his civil rights, not weed smoking. Nevada allows for Civil Unions though? Again, I'm talking historically; within the past decade yes lovely stuff has happened. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
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. Marriage has been a tool of property law since pre-Roman days. Even peasants used marriage as an asset to combine resources to better survive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:It's a loving shame that the outcome of this case is even in question in the year 2012. Which year would it not be a shame?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:There's a certain narrative that the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v. Wade created a backlash against abortion rights, and that a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing same-sex marriage would have a similar impact on that issue. Neither half of that narrative is correct, but DC political elites seem fairly susceptible to it, including Justice Ginsburg herself. That could just force her to write a concurring opinion rather than agree with the majority, though, depending on which case it is. e: Like if it would be 6-3 with her, she could write her own thing saying how this case is right but nationalizing gay marriage is wrong, and it'd still be okay.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
A Intimate Rimjobs posted:One of the years that America had better human-rights laws than South Africa, I guess So "never", gotcha.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:When can we expect a decision? June.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:
As best I can tell this isn't true. The only question in the Prop 8 case is whether a state and give rights to a minority and then take them away at a future date. The question of whether gay couples could have their right to marriage blocked by a state isn't in question.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
There's a reason why people were only clamoring to ban mosques in the US while in Europe they actually did ban them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 23:07
|
|
You mean the US is actually ahead of the curve on something? Wow. I'm happily shocked.
|
Kurtofan posted:Now that's a bit of an overstatement, the Swiss banned the construction of minarets, which is a xenophobic move but it's not quite the same, "Europe" never banned mosques, even if there is much clamoring like in the US. True, probably should have used the French banning burqas instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:Oh, politics. Where being a decent goddamn human being merits congratulations. I'm curious as to what you would consider merits congratulations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Huh I thought Germany was rather socially liberal about poo poo like this? I guess I missed something. Still, good for the ones on the basic human dignity train! Two of their parties in their coalition are Christian ones; for obvious reasons they're not going to be that gay friendly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:And a lot you wouldn't expect to have it that do. Argentina, South Africa, Spain, and Portugal are pretty surprising to me. I believe when Spain legalized it the King said something along the lines of "Of course I'm legalizing it, I'm not the King of Belgium.  "
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
platzapS posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
katium posted:
I think that's less likely then voting to overturn Obamacare on state's rights, and you see how that ended up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Don't we already have that for heterosexual marriages? When I got married, it wasn't like I could force a church to let me have the ceremony on its grounds. Or is this more of a "protecting our right to discriminate" kind of thing? By fair, the major reason that a lot of people don't support gay marriage is because they think that it means that gays can force churches to marry them. Adding this sort of exception is a thing which will not change anything (who wants to get married at a church that's actively hostile to you?) but makes some people feel better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Is this supposed to be an actual organization, or just people who don't think the gay people are literally possessed by demons? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/02/friends-of-hamas-and-andrew-breitbarts-legacy.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:How can this happen and we not see the Tea Party crowd split off and form its own actual party? Coalitions in the US are incredibly sticky. That being said, it's rapidly approaching the point where people are going to start splitting off (or shutting up). e: Remember that the last of the Southern Democrats (not the dudes who switched but the dudes that literally had a D after their name) only finally got voted out 30 years after the Civil Right Act was passed. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Boxman posted:I'm sure these sorts of questions have been asked, but: There are two sections of DOMA which are controversial - one section is what you said, refusing the full faith and credit clause, the other one is the federal government not recognizing homosexual marriages at all. I believe that only the latter may be struck down, but if the former also is then yes you could theoretically marry someone and then come back to your state and it would be valid (or move somewhere and it's still valid, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I think it is a likely outcome. It would require a masterfully written opinion to write an opinion that upholds a state's right to not recognize another state's marriages and not overturn Loving v. Virginia. And say what you will about Clarence Thomas (he is a boot licking uncle tom), he won't sign onto a majority that overturns Loving. No, they could just say "We're only going to focus on Section 3 (the federal recognition part), regardless of the constitutionality of the other parts". I'm pretty sure they've done that before in other cases. I think the main point though is that if they're going to overturn, they'll go whole hog on it just to get it out of the way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Are the amicus briefs filed to the court ever released? I'd like to read the ones coming from the Mormon church and company. They appear to be one of those things which aren't restricted legally but aren't available online anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I like how it is signed onto by the Gun Owners Foundation, because nothing says advancing gun rights like making sure those filthy queers cannot marry. To be fair, the Gun Owner's Foundation is literally the people who think the NRA is going soft on gun rights.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:
Because they're winning?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Don't get me wrong, that truly would be excellent if that happened, mainly to show how far we've come and it was overwhelmingly supported. it just seems too generous of a result given the court that is presently meeting. I've always seen it squeezing by in the traditional "in a 5-4 decision..." In favor of striking down 8. Not sure if DOMA will be touched, and might be kicked down the road. This might just be me being pessimistic though Roberts will join it regardless of Kennedy because he's more concerned with his legacy than Nixon was with his tapes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:A friend of mine posted this, which sort of took away the fun: Mine just did this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:the divorce rate is near 50% Is it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The shift has happened a lot faster. Note that the national in this chart is still under 50% for 2012. Opinion has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage a hell of a lot faster than anyone really expected. I'd say we're closer to the 2016 numbers today than we are 2012. Do we have a state breakdown though? It could be that the national average is higher but only because the pro-equality states ran up the vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
This seems like a decent point to run on during 2014, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Texas A&M's student body president, in a bold move, vetoed a bill that would have let students opt out of funding the GLBT Resource Center with their activity fees if they had religious objections. There's actually a movement on campus to withdraw the guy that proposed it too. The bill was a non-binding thing in either case, but it doesn't exactly help the reputation of A&M as "the least gay friendly campus in the nation" (yes, including Liberty U).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 21:29
|
|