|
Cocks Cable posted:Read today that the Prop 8 Proponents indicated that they will opt for a rehearing by the entire 9th District.
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
gohuskies posted:Al Gore would have won the election if every Nader voter in Florida had voted Gore instead. In 2004, did the Democrats move left to capture those Nader voters? No, they didn't, they nominated the more centrist option instead. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Off topic for the marriage equality thread, sorry
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
e: let's move this to the American Meltdown thread
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:14 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
shitthedd posted:Are there any objections to recognizing same-sex marriage that aren't either based on religion or pure animus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Romen's holding (or perhaps dicta) disallow animus against a group as a reason for making a classification? Not really. I don't know Romen, but the problem is the standard of scrutiny applied. Unless an elevated level of scrutiny is applied, all the state needs to do is show a compelling interest in regulating something, which can be completely hypothetical. Like, you can claim that gay people can't have children, the state has a compelling interest in having children, banning gay marriage causes more children, ergo ban gay marriage. It's transparently bullshit, but the Supreme Court has bent over backwards to apply low standards of scrutiny to sexual orientation despite obvious histories of discrimination and other things which should induce strict scrutiny. This is starting to break somewhat, when California's Supreme Court ruled on marriage protection pre-Prop 8 it applied strict scrutiny for one of the first times. The Prop 8 case is another interesting one, the anti-gay-marriage folks did such a bad job making their case the judge didn't even find a rational basis let alone a strict scrutiny. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Wouldn't Roberts want to switch over to the 'for' side so he could write the opinion and put his legacy on the right side of history if it was obvious that it was going to pass with or without him?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
The split between gay men and the rest of the community is still raw.quote:Last Tuesday and Wednesday, thousands of LGBT people and their allies rallied on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., as the nation's highest court considered two cases on marriage equality. But amid all the excitement, undocumented and transgender activists say they were told to keep quiet. The coalition of LGBT organizations hosting the rally has since issued an apology. Reportedly the people asking the activists to lower the trans flag did so because "marriage equality is not a trans issue". I originally read this on FireDogLake and was rather dumbfounded to see this kind of response on a site that is ostensibly progressive: quote:As a gay man, Trans Issues have NOTHING to do with me. Many of us are wondering why we are just lumped together.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:loving amazing. Yes, I can't think of a single scenario in which the lack of freedom to marry people of the same legal gender could possibly affect a trans person, gay or straight. Oh I should add that those weren't just random people who showed up telling transpeople to put the flags away, it was HRC staffers. Yup. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Do you have a link to that FireDogLake article by chance? http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/04/01/moving-past-detente-between-the-hrc-and-the-trans-community/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Isn't abortion completely outlawed in Ireland? It seems strange for them to be so progressive on this. They legalized abortion but didn't remove the legal penalties for performing an abortion and haven't licensed anyone to do it, so it's defacto illegal (but not completely outlawed).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
It is just mindblowing how fast this issue swung around. Prop 8 passed just 4 years ago, now it seems like every day I read about some new state or country bringing a marriage bill to a vote and most of the time they're passing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
wid posted:If the tattoo artist found out a guy is a Neo Nazi/KKK/whatever the gently caress and he's asking for a tattoo of a pink pony that the artist gave to someone else, he CANNOT refuse. Actually you could refuse that too, because political beliefs are not a protected class. In my state sexual orientation and gender identity are similarly unprotected, and you can kick people out of their house, fire them, or refuse to give them any tattoo (or any other public accommodation) on that basis, legitimately.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm sorry but bullshit. I've been following same-sex marriage for forever and I've never once seen any language to the effect of "no bisexuals allowed" marriage equality isn't some clubhouse. It doesn't come up in terms of actively excluding rights for bisexuals, but there sure is some animus against bi people within the community. Go look through some of Dan Savage's old podcasts where he muses on how bi men don't really exist, just men who are confused about being gay, and how a lot of bi people really aren't and are just faking it because they're trendy and wouldn't actually date a same-sex partner seriously or marry them. Sure, just one guy, but that thought didn't just spring forth from his own imagination. It's a reflection of how bi people aren't truly accepted by the gay community, particularly the movers and shakers (aka rich white gay guys). The fact that the community is so driven by that one particular group does reflect in policy - see how transgendered people pretty much get thrown under the bus too. I think there is a serious risk of the rest of the acronyms getting left out in the cold once gay marriage is achieved. They aren't paid equal attention even now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
I don't understand how you have trouble interpreting that post. He's doing his part to support gay issues, and he's worrying that once gays have theirs they're going to drop out of activism and not support his issues (i.e. he isn't worth being in solidarity with). It's an issue of whether you identify first and foremost as a sexual minority, or specifically as gay. Which really is a pretty fair concern considering how much the LGBT movement is dominated by rich, white gay guys. There's a very long history of WASP-y types not caring about any issues that don't directly affect them, and once gay marriage is de jure normalized a bunch of the momentum is likely going to be lost which is going to hurt other issues. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Man I love hearing about these straw men. It's nice that you think it's a strawman but it's a real concern. Here's a The Nation article that discusses where to go next from here, and it raises the exact same point. quote:... There's a lot less effort placed into supporting LGBT homeless or minority issues than helping rich white guys on the coasts get married, and it's an open question whether even that level will be sustained if there's a dropoff in activism after the "biggest issue" has been won. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Coming from a married person this is loving rich. Why didn't you wait for total social justice before marrying your wife? Some people do this, for certain values of "total social justice". For instance Lena Dunham isn't getting married until gay marriage is legalized nationwide, despite the fact that she could marry her opposite-sex partner at any time. It's called "solidarity". Whether you think that's a good way to show solidarity or not (I tend to fall a little bit on the "not" side), it's a really important thing to de-atomize ourselves because divide-and-conquer is a really good way to disrupt social movements. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Great, good for them. It still doesn't excuse forums poster rkajd (who is married) from forcing that standard on every same-sex couple. For someone who was just throwing around the word "strawman" a few posts ago, I'm really not seeing how his posts are requiring you to stay unmarried. Maybe you could use a direct quotation instead of just telling us what his claim is and then knocking it down?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's right on this page, man. That's not saying that you shouldn't get married if it's available to you, that's saying that marriage rights shouldn't be the primary and sole focus of the whole gay rights movement when it's clearly not the only issue that affects LGBT people. That quote above about how marriage rights are the "last piece in the puzzle" is really loving disgusting and really encapsulates the whole problem. Did the NAACP declare total victory and pack up shop after the civil rights act? Movement's over, guys, no more issues for people of color, everyone go home? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
^^^ That's kind of the issue, but the NAACP still does advocate on many issues for people of color, they didn't just pack up like many gay advocacy organizations are doing (in some cases literally disbanding). I don't see "save it for last" as "actively stonewall the issue", but rather a question of where resources should be directed. Right now almost all of the money is going to a single issue (which happens to be a fairly easy issue to deal with on the coasts and doesn't actually require many resources). Unfortunately there's not really a good way to actually achieve that because of the extremely lopsided focus of the community (a small subset of community gives most of the money and time and therefore sets the focus of the movement as a whole). You can't really tell people not to donate to issues that directly affect them personally, but it's more than fair to point out that it's selfishness framed in the words of inclusiveness, and the other issues are going unaddressed while you suck up money and resources for the gay marriage cause. It's good that you can marry, but it doesn't do jack poo poo for someone who gets kicked out of their house or fired from their job for being gay. You'll probably do better without a marriage license than a poor twentysomething in Alabama is going to do with no job and no house. And while we're celebrating all these gay marriage states, there's still absolutely no chance of any movement on ENDA or other protections because the marriage issue has been sucking up all the resources in the community. And once that has been achieved, most of the money is very likely to go away and the issues will still be unaddressed. That's a real solidarity problem. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Edgar posted:Looks like people from my home town are calling for an uprising against same sex marriages. quote:“The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats,” Mack said. Today, our agenda, tomorrow a "hot daddy sandwich"... 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:If you're rich and gay, the democrats are the pro business party that most aligns with your interests. Of course this is true in an abstract sense for all businessmen. If everyone pays their employees well there is a large middle class that can consume your goods and give you money. That doesn't stop shitloads (probably a majority) of businessmen from voting for the GOP and supporting GOP policy nonetheless, because the only thing better than having a large, cash-flush customer base is also getting to pay your employees peanuts. VitalSigns posted:Eh, just whip up hatred against some other group and the Evangelicals will come to the polls to keep "them" from taking over America. Evangelicals already don't give a poo poo about Jesus' sermons about the rich, so getting them to ignore this should be comparatively easy. I think there are indeed going to be attempts to peel away affluent gay men from the LGBT coalition. I think it would be unsuccessful under the current GOP coalition because evangelicals just can't keep their mouths shut, but who knows? The gay rights issue is proceeding a lot faster than black civil rights, and rich people never had their children wake up poor and black during the civil rights movement. Just because it's been a wedge issue in the past doesn't mean the GOP won't crack down on the crazies ("no more fools in 2014") or that actual resistance on gay rights issues won't be relegated to a small group of evangelicals who even the GOP looks at crazy (anti-vaccers, fluoride people, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:drat, I'm jealous of lesbians because they do some lovely stuff yet "affluent gay men" catch all the blame. It really is amazing to see all problems within my community being attributed to some shadowy cabal. Here's the money chart, so to speak:  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/06/study-poverty-rate-elevated-for-lgbt-community More data from the census: quote:DUBNER: Let’s take a look at U.S. Census data. According to some analyses, median household income for heterosexual couples is about $86,000. For gay male couples, meanwhile, median household income is…$105,600, or nearly 20 percent more. And, for what it’s worth, lesbian couples have lower median income than heterosexual couples, about $84,000. So Danny Rosa seems to be right – gay men do seem to earn more. So the next logical question is … why? Practical interpretation: both gay men and lesbians face higher-than-average rates of poverty. Lesbians in particular are hurt by overall lower earning power for women then men. However, for gay men specifically there is a huge bubble of wealth at the top that raises the average income to 20% higher than the average and this bubble does not exist to anywhere near the same extent for lesbian women, or transgendered people, or any other demographic. A shadowy cabal isn't anything that's been claimed (i.e. a strawman) and that's not how things work in reality, it's just the same FYGM politics and special interest pandering that peel off any wealthy subdemographic. That kind of wealth inequality is a situation that's ripe for Republican advantage, if they can shut up the yokel crowd about how much they hate gays. It would probably happen at a state level first, places like New York and New Jersey have decent numbers of gay people and don't have to pander to the hicks like they might down south. If your representative isn't crowing about how much he hates gays (all politics are local) it's entirely possible that those affluent gay people could start voting Republican. I really think the GOP is going to take a turn for the "shut up about gay people" very soon, probably 2016 even if they decide to use it as a wedge issue in deep red states one last time. A lot of that pain will be inflicted anyway very soon. It was wildly apparent to everyone in 2012 that the inmates were running the asylum (endless yokel primaries, Rove's little meltdown, unskewing, Cruz's one man government shutdown, etc), and that's simply not a way that the GOP can win. I think the "no more fools" is going to come from on high, strongly, and soon. The state-level parties run their own internal affairs and I think a lot of them are going to start tightening their grip. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:People who honestly want the government out of marriage should create significant lobbying organizations to show they are serious or get on board with marriage equality and attempt to change minds once most if not all 50 states have been won. Until then they will be viewed with same hostility and skepticism as someone saying "I wish to deny your rights for many years." You mean like the Freedom From Religion Foundation? They are actually earnestly out there trying to get religion out of government. For example religious social workers (clergy) get tax breaks on their mortgage payments while secular social workers do not, and they are working on solving this by suing to remove the tax breaks for religious social workers. This is analogous to "getting the government out of marriage" instead of expanding the religious definition of marriage. Of course many people also have a problem with that, but it's not like there are no other areas where people are attempting to disentangle church and state. Sorry they're not addressing the issue you personally want them to. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But taking the state out of a state function is ridiculous. It's not really a state function so much as a cultural practice that the government has a vested interest in supporting (after all, marriage predates not just all our religions but all of our governments as well). The specific institution they have chosen to support has been entangled with religion for millennia even if it is not "inherently" a religious institution. The fact that it is so entangled with religion has caused immense problems every single time anyone challenges the boundaries. It caused problems when blacks wanted to marry white people, it caused problems when gays wanted to marry, it caused literal war with the Mormons, it'll someday cause problems if polyamory ever becomes a serious thing. If what we really want is for the government to recognize stable cohabiting family units they can just do that directly. While gay marriage is the shortest and easiest path to granting somewhat equal rights in that specific case, long-term the correct approach is to just identify the thing we're trying to support and do it directly instead of trying to balance the personal religions (or lack thereof) of 310 million people. If you don't flip the paradigm on its head you'll always have a group of people who are shut out because they don't fit the "traditional model" of marriage, whatever that happens to be at the time. It's always going to suck to be that group, whether it's gays or trans or polys or whoever. Also, there's married couples who don't really meet the characteristics marriage is supposedly trying to encourage either. It may be an easy way to target that, but that doesn't make it the best way. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Stuff like this really shows how desperate these people are getting. They're seeing the dominoes fall all around them and they know they've barely won a single victory in years, and now they're lashing out for any victory they can get before it's too late. It's been said before, but it's mindblowing how fast the tide turned on this one. California passed Prop 8 in 2008, by 2012 it was an obvious enough winner that national-level Democrats stopped fence-sitting, and by mid 2013 victory was pretty much inevitable. At this point I think all moderate support has been peeled away, it's only the hardcore Focus on the Family types who even care anymore. Well, them and Russia 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:I said it many times, and it's actually going to happen. Texas is going to have legal gay marriage before Pennsylvania. I can't stop laughing. I don't know why that would be a surprise, Pennsylvania is the state that sent Rick Santorum to the senate twice. Apart from the urban areas, isn't the nickname Pennsultucky?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:It wouldn't surprise me to find out that gay and straight life expectancies are pretty similar-ish. Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that gays (or at least gay men) have a higher life expectancy, at least in the US. Being wealthy is a major determining factor of your lifespan, and gay men have a median income that is quite a lot more than the national median (from memory, the national median household income is $80k, lesbians are $75k, gay men are $100k or something along those lines). 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Now now, let's be fair. They've been saying this (with the same implications that straight peoples' marriages somehow aren't "government intervention" and would thus be protected) since at least 2004. The intellectually honest ones are in favor of treating straight marriages the same way. It's really an attempt to divorce the legal, governmental aspects of marriage (the "civil union" part) from the religious aspects once and for all. Of course religion has fairly well lost its grip on this specific issue regardless over the past two years, but I'm sure there will be another marriage fight in 50 years or so on another topic (I'm betting polamory/polygamy personally). In the abstract it would be desirable to short-circuit these future fights altogether by just separating out the religious aspects and directly recognizing the thing we want (stable family units). Whether you think that separating religion out would actually aid those future fights is another matter, one that probably depends on your opinion of the intellectual honesty of religious folk and so on. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I was a cub scout, was in two separate Boy Scout troops, a Venture crew, am an Eagle, and have interacted with plenty of troops in my day and I can't say I've ever seen that particular tradition. Admittedly none of the troops I was actually in was real big on the more archaic scouting traditions (or the creepy religious stuff), but I'm also not coming up with anything with a quick search either. The usual Scout sign is pinkie and thumb touching across the hand, not flat-palmed. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
staticman posted:Nah, just that the timing was perfect. They may be Literal neo-nazis, no, although you might be surprised, hate isn't eternal. The definition of "white" is a fluid thing and I remember hearing how many neo-nazis actually are OK with things like allying with jews/Israel nowadays because they hate muslims more. Even still, all but the nuttiest GOPers don't actually mind black people as long as they have all the right opinions. In fact they really love to trot out a Herman Cain or Allen West to show just how not-racist they are, particularly if said black friend proceeds to blast their own race as lazy immoral layabouts. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 22:23
|
|
because of what the BSA did, but do you really think they'd let black people in if they were literal Nazis?
|
DutchDupe posted:All of this talk about who is the most handsome Nazi is what I imagine freepers and other assorted wingnuts are picturing when they try to warn us of the gay gestapo. The revolution will be well-tailored. And all those spit-shined boots... 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
effectual posted:That was also an issue in Washington, when the anti-gay initiatives were going around a few years ago and people didn't want the names of the signers released. My opinion is that you should only vote for something if you're proud enough of that vote to exclaim it in public. That's why I liked the caucuses. The community aspect of voting lost with mail in ballots. That's pretty stupid, the secret ballot is actually really important. Progress on social issues tends to die if you let the majority shame people for voting morally-correct but unpopular stances. Now, signing petitions or donating money to campaigns is a different ballgame. That's an issue of freedom of speech, and you shouldn't be speaking if you're not willing to put your name behind your words.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
Necessary though, since election days were never made paid federal holidays for everyone.
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right and the issue was over disclosing who signed petitions to get Prop 8 onto the ballot and all, which should be totally open and free information. No one campaigned to reveal voting records except apparently that guy. "Signing petitions and donating money is speech and should be disclosed" was one of the two main thrusts of my fairly short post, thanks for reading. The guy I was responding to specifically thinks that all votes should be public. effectual posted:My opinion is that you should only vote for something if you're proud enough of that vote to exclaim it in public. That's why I liked the caucuses. The community aspect of voting lost with mail in ballots. Support breaks down into hard support ("willing to exclaim it/become activist") and soft support ("I'll vote for it if it comes up") and the latter is usually far greater than the former. If you allow that kind of public shaming, you're going to lose a bunch of the soft support and that's going to retard progress on any issue that isn't settled (like gay marriage post-2012). We have a hard enough time getting people to vote as it is, we don't need to drive participation down even more with moral majority bullshit. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
It's also a case where the scale of things flips the meaning of "national" to "federal" in US terms. What people actually mean by "national ID card" is "federal ID card" and that doesn't exist in the EU either. You don't get a European Union Identity Card in the EU, you get an identity card from Poland or Germany or France, which is analogous to state-issued identity cards in the EU structure. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:You may be right, technically, but lets compare apples to apples. The US is a federal state, and Germany is a federal state (16 states for 80 million people). Germany has national/federal ID. It's also rather uncontroversial. Right, it's uncontroversial because in the EU national IDs are issued "locally". State-issued IDs are uncontroversial in the US too. Given how much people cry about everything done in Brussels, EU identity cards would probably be just as divisive and controversial as US issued identity cards from Washington. The usual "state's rights" crowds always throw a fit about big government power grabs and the gigantic centralized databases that will totally spring into being (hint: they already exist) and begin oppressing everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Its even better when people don't even contend the current existence of the Permanent Record form of information-gathering, but they still quibble about a fact of life in developed countries as part of a 'slippery slope into fascism'. Seriously, I mean, the NSA can literally pinpoint your computer by fingerprinting the browser or OS, and having to store "License #01234567, Alabama" instead of "License #0123456789" is really going to throw them off the track somehow? But really, the underlying feelings are the exact same, the terminology is just a little different. I know for a fact there are various anti-EU national-rights type parties and I guarantee you those types will throw a fit about MY SOVEREIGNTY if you tried to implement an EU-wide ID system. The fact that Germany has cantons or whatever doesn't mean dick, our states have their own individual "federal" governments of counties/parrishes/etc too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Gerund posted:Agreed! And to bodily wrench this topic back, imagine how much faster the appeals process would be if there was a centralized form and identification system for marriage. No quibbling about different state forms being necessary and then waiting for the eventual harm to occur to form the basis of an appeal, just black-and-white "this person is married or else you're a bigot" = instant court case. The whole 50-different-systems thing helps minority movements gain momentum. If you make it so there's only one system, you destroy the possibility of progress on the state level. I honestly can't think of a civil rights issue that was resolved in the proper, history-approved fashion by a nationwide majority right from the start (if everyone agrees, it's not an issue). I guess maybe abortion, but that one backslid after Roe v Wade. Most of the time you start with a broad, popular disapproval, you convince a few liberal states, who pass laws and show the rest of the country that the sky doesn't fall, and then you gradually convince the majority and then the courts finally drag Alabama and Mississippi kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Much like the idea of making all of everyone's votes public, it sounds great until you realize that you're not starting from a majority. If you ask the national public what they think of interracial marriage circa 1950 or gay marriage circa 1970 then you're going to get a resounding "hell no", and then how are you going to show people that gay marriages work too? The US only has had national majority support for gay marriage since 2011. The tools (suspect classifications, etc) exist but it's really tough to get people to interpret the law in such a way to use them given the dynamics of a political system. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 23:59
|
|