Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: boymimbo
And for those of you who are complaining about SCOTUS, SCOTUS also gave you George W. Bush for 8 years. That 5-4 decision changed the direction of the country forever.
Yes, it saved an election from being stolen by Gore.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only gay behavior I can remember being criticized recently is Sandusky and maybe the Catholic Priests.
Don't know why it's necessary to refer to either as a sexual preference.
If Sandusky raping little boys is gay behavior, men who rape little girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior.
Quote: rxwine
If Sandusky raping little boys is gay behavior, men who rape little girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior.
Yes and yes. Just via rape instead of consent.
Quote: rxwineDon't know why it's necessary to refer to either as a sexual preference.
If Sandusky raping little boys is gay behavior, men who rape little girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior.
Good point, rxwine; pedophiles are out there in all orientations. A very different thing from adult relations of any type.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is an interesting point. You have guys like this, but what you see is the gay-pride whackadoodles dressed in drag, flowers in their ass, basically making jerks out of themselves as the "spokesmen" for the gay movement. You hear demands to keep bath houses and glory holes open. But do you ever hear any criticism of the ones acting like jerks? Never.
The only gay behavior I can remember being criticized recently is Sandusky and maybe the Catholic Priests. Some have sued in CA to force employers not to "hide" guys who choose to wear a dress or female clothes to work, regardless of the effect on business. Others sue to allow high school boys who "identify female" to use the girl's locker room.
When those doing these things are not called out I assume this is all OK with the gay movement. And their "we just want to live a normal life" line is shown to be bunk, they want to force acceptance. They then call those who do not accept and support them bigots. And people ask why I feel the way I do.
I totally get it, but I think that's the problem with every mainstream issue nowadays. It's the shock factor, the headline grabbers, the in-your-face behavior that you remember, when that doesn't always represent the majority.
With gays, you don't remember the quiet, well put together gay men playing 3 Card two tables down. They're just there, living their lives like most everyone else. What you remember is the flaming, ecstatic, LOOK-AT-ME freak show full of dudes that would make Rip Taylor look docile in comparison. The gentlemen are boring; the freaks put the asses in the seats. You've just seen it with us and the anger directed our way. The hoplophobes don't recognize us, who quietly go about our business of admiring, acquiring, and passionately supporting proper, responsible gun use, they see the headline grabbers of dudes with 50 ARs hoarding 50,000 rounds of ammo and toting them into malls to make a point, all the while creating civilian militias for the inevitable revolution and overthrow of the Left. We are boring. The maniacal minutemen sell the paper. And speaking of the Left, they're not all sucking at the government teat with hands out waiting for entitlements, just as the Right aren't all Bible thumping, poor hating, gay hating bigots. But those are the examples which are remembered. And I gotta admit, while I may have decried some of the more batshit crazy gun nuts, many of those whom I simply "disagreed with" I left alone, simply for the fact that "Hey, they're on my side. More power to the cause."
"Let he without sin..." and all that jazz.
Perhaps I'm still too young and still too naive, but it is as I said - I think the majority of gays, at least the ones I've known, are just normal, boring people living normal, boring lives. And I can't let the actions of a few nutbags influence my thoughts on a whole people.
May I live long enough to see the results of my actions.
Quote: boymimbo
Since I am in the distinct minority please feel free to abuse me at will.
And GO!
Great post. A+
(I'm not good at abuse =p)
As an instructor in constitutional law who was also a very active practicing lawyer told our class a couple of years ago when the cases were starting to percolate up to Scotus, using the premise of equal protection was highly likely to have more than a few unintended consequences. People who practiced, say, polygamy or polyandry or even incest among consenting adults would have virtually foolproof cases based on the precedent set today.Quote: CalderEqual protection? Every American has an identical right to marry someone of the opposite sex -- how can it be any more equal?
Quote: SanchoPanzaPeople who practiced, say, polygamy or polyandry or even incest among consenting adults would have virtually foolproof cases based on the precedent set today.
We've been assured that such an assertion is ridiculous. Anyone want to take a guess at how long it will be until someone uses this precedent to justify one of the above?
This whole can of worms should never have been opened. Get the government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business and most of these issues just melt away.
Quote: rxwineConsenting adults. Where will the madness end?
Tell this to the gay marriage supporters that get squeamish about polygamy and adult incest. Makes no difference to me what consenting adults do.
Quote: DeMangoNo one has a more difficult task, than the atheist in trying to prove something came from nothing. Evil cannot exist since there is no good. So in your reality all selfishness is acceptable. That is your reality, not mine.
Evil doesn't exist, as degeneracy is simply the normal mode of the human condition, as it always was. We simply don't notice it unless it is extreme and in the newspapers. This fact also applies to human gamblers, giving us a really, really wide scale.
And sainthood doesn't exist either. Being a bit higher on the ethical scale simply means you are both out of variance, and that you are not doing time.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only gay behavior I can remember being criticized recently is Sandusky and maybe the Catholic Priests.
That's so true. Then again, the "objective" media would rather harp on the 'Catholic' angle than the 'gay' angle.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyTell this to the gay marriage supporters that get squeamish about polygamy and adult incest.
+1
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs an instructor in constitutional law who was also a very active practicing lawyer told our class a couple of years ago when the cases were starting to percolate up to Scotus, using the premise of equal protection was highly likely to have more than a few unintended consequences. People who practiced, say, polygamy or polyandry or even incest among consenting adults would have virtually foolproof cases based on the precedent set today.
I am glad I am not alone in noticing this. As of yesterday a Saudi with three wives can now have that recognized by the Feds if he moves to or even visits the USA. It is only a matter of time before gays start suing churches for "refusing" to perform marriage ceremonies. And think of this one: Dad is a widower who worked for the government and has a pension. Daughter is single and dad is on his deathbed. Dad "marries" daughter who now gets surviver benefits for life! Why not, as "marriage" is now just anything anyone wants yesterday.
..... ........
Space above left blank to allow someone to insert a "wikipedia slippery slope link."
There are still plenty of legal preventatives that prevent polygamy and relatives getting married, though there are some states that still allow 1st cousins to get married.
Your government is still capable of making resasonable measures that doesn't take the country to hell. They managed to allow women to vote yet the voting age is still 18. Children didn't start suing the court and state "we must have the right to vote" - and win. Negroes who got their civil rights in the '60s didn't convince the government to give them hundreds of thousands in benefits for being wronged all of those years.
Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of places that have had gay marriage legalized for years now and yet there are no fathers marrying daughters or polygamous marriages on the books. Look north. No churches have been sued either. That hasn't meant that there hasn't been controversy.
Many times you can't reach the bigotted mind with facts.
Consider polygamy, and polyandry for that matter. The ratio of women to men just isn't disparate enough to make it work, nor are the economics, psychology, social dynamics, etc, etc. The practice will forever be confined to a very few people, even in societies that permit it or encourage it. It's not quite self-evident, but it's something easy to see if you give it a little thought. But it makes no difference to some people.
So let's give them something to worry about: multiple marriage families.
That's a provisional name, you understand. The idea is for two or more couples to enter into a mutual marriage. Say two men and two women all married to each other and forming a household. The numbers aren't against this. It might be very helpful for one of the wives, just as an example, to be a stay-at-home mom for the group's children, while the three other spouses work. But with the twist that she'll switch roles with the working wife, say, halfway through. That way neither woman has to suspend her career for too long, nor worry about their childrens' home lives.
Go. Worry about this.
Oh, just to throw some fuel to the fire: a straight couple would join with a gay couple in these kinds of multiple marriages, too. It might even be preferable, as neither spouse would worry about his or her mate sleeping with another spouse.
Discuss >:D
Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of places that have had gay marriage legalized for years now and yet there are no fathers marrying daughters or polygamous marriages on the books. Look north. No churches have been sued either. That hasn't meant that there hasn't been controversy.
The difference is in the details of the legal logic applied. The court did not rule on if or if not we should have gay marriage as a right, the court ruled that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is discriminatory. The USA operates, thankfully, as a negative-law system. This means that unless it is banned it is allowed. DOMA defined marriage as one-man/one-woman for benefits purposes, the court said that discriminates and any sanctioned marriage is a "marriage."
So logically if a guy has a few wives or any other situation I mentioned happens they are also being "discriminated" against for their spousal choices because the court already said you cannot limit marriage. If they said you could define it then they reverse themselves on DOMA!
Now, in say NY where they legalized gay marriage you cannot bring two wives to the courthouse, because they did not legalize that. You could sue your way back to the Supremes, but they already punted on if states can legalize or prohibit.
Quote:Negroes who got their civil rights in the '60s didn't convince the government to give them hundreds of thousands in benefits for being wronged all of those years.
Har har har. There have been requests for "slavery reparations" for years. Affirmative Action has been instituted in government and colleges nationwide. Lots of "indirect" payouts (google "pigfordf" for one.) Minority contractor set-asides. And they never stop demanding.
1) It will become harder to express prejudice, either by word or deed, against gay people. This is sure to bring forth the apocalypse waaay ahead of schedule.
2) There will be less bullying of both gay kids and kids of gay parents. No doubt this will tear apart the social fabric of the universe.
3) A lot of angry people who cannot tell a straight man from a rapist (yes, that's what I said) will boil over quietly in the background. There may be an opportunity here for pharmaceutical companies intent on developing blood pressure meds.
That's enough for starters.
Still, I can't resist adding this: US citizens currently in a legal same sex marriage with a foreign spouse will now be able to sponsor their spouses for US residence and citizenship. The horror! The horror!
Quote: Syllabus, US vs Windsor
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of theseparate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulatethe meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, butDOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage. Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates tothe Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.
Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State. DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them adignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting in-jury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. New York’s actions were aproper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaningof equality. Pp. 13–20.
(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
...
DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. In contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect"
DOMA has left marriage laws up to the States. If one has three wives and files an income tax return, the state of residence will recognize the validity of said marriage. If the person(s) filing are non-residents, the federal laws will take over and marriage will continue to be defined as between one man and one woman.
It is up to the states to enact legislation as to whether same sex marriage, or medical marijuana, is legal within its boundaries.
Looks like the feds may yield if the state law as arguably rational.
Hello, states rights.
Conservatives will be outed as opponents of liberty and propponents of statist controls over people's behavior, mostly based on their interpretation of religion.
No, wait. this was already known. My bad.
Quote: MrVSo, as the issues with DOMA and Medical Marijuana seem somewhat similar, I suppose this ruling might provide some support to the proponents of MM.
It is up to the states to enact legislation as to whether same sex marriage, or medical marijuana, is legal within its boundaries.
Looks like the feds may yield if the state law as arguably rational.
Hello, states rights.
Set your watch and see how long until the Feds start pressuring states to allow gay marriage. Pressure will be applied just like they did on seat belts and .08 DUI.
Quote: MrVSo, as the issues with DOMA and Medical Marijuana seem somewhat similar, I suppose this ruling might provide some support to the proponents of MM.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
besides, two states already approved recreational use of marijuana.
Look, drugs are terrible. They are just as bad as opponents say they are, if not worse. But they're not as bad as the irrational measures in palce to combat drug trafficking and use. Eventually drug prohibition will have to stop, just like alcohol prohibition did.
Quote: Sabretom2For my choice, gotta go with bigot. It's not a difficult choice at this point. Over the past few years, I've learned I'm also a racist and a hater of women. Feel free to lengthen the list as you see fit.
That's OK. Most gay marriage supporters become bigots themselves when it comes to: (1) fetus equality, (2) firearms equality, and (3) tax-rate equality. They only like equal rights in some cases, but not others.
Quote: Sabretom2For my choice, gotta go with bigot. It's not a difficult choice at this point. Over the past few years, I've learned I'm also a racist and a hater of women. Feel free to lengthen the list as you see fit.
I'm guessing you hate the environment and want school shootings as well?
Now, I wasn't going to comment on this gay marriage issue, but since I have begun posting, I will share my opinion. As a gay man, I don't care that much about marriage. I have never understood why any two people, gay or straight need a piece of paper to express their love and/or commitment for each other. It seems like it should be a private discussion and arrangement between those two individuals. BUT, when the government gets involved and starts offering certain benefits to couple that have that piece of paper, then the opportunity to get that piece of paper MUST be afforded to all couple. To not afford that opportunity is discrimination and not treating all people equal, which is the basis of our constitution.
So in my mind, every couple must have the rights to those same benefits. Now you could achieve that goal with civil unions as well as marriage and I personally would have been A-ok with that. I personally don't need to use that word "marriage", which has become so toxic and 'the right' seems so up in arms about as long as everyone is afforded the same opportunities to be treated equal.
Quote: kewljI am confused by the poll totals. As of this posting there are 52 votes recorded in the 4 possible answers, but the bottom stated 40 members have voted. In addition if you add up the percentages to the 4 choices, it totals 130%. Seems like something is wrong.
I set this poll so you could pick multiple responses, from one to all. That should play havoc with the numbers.
It was my attempt at a Fair and Balanced a la Fox News/Mainstream Media poll. Sorry (Fair and Balanced are registered trademarks of someone or other).
Quote: NareedLook, drugs are terrible. They are just as bad as opponents say they are, if not worse. But they're not as bad as the irrational measures in palce to combat drug trafficking and use. Eventually drug prohibition will have to stop, just like alcohol prohibition did.
Your example seems to undercut your argument; Prohibition was handled through constitutional amendments, without the Supreme Court overturning anything.
The point is, the decision should be made by elected legislatures representing the people, rather than by 5 out of 9 unelected lawyers who think it'd be a swell idea.
Or at least, that's how it used to be done.
Quote: kewljNow you could achieve that goal with civil unions as well as marriage and I personally would have been A-ok with that. I personally don't need to use that word "marriage", which has become so toxic and 'the right' seems so up in arms about as long as everyone is afforded the same opportunities to be treated equal.
+1
This point is key. If we did just as you said, I don't think conservatives would have any problem at all.
I really don't understand why liberals insist on redefining commonplace words. When we gave women equal rights, we didn't change the definition of 'man' to include women. When we gave blacks equal rights, we didn't change the definition of the word 'white' to include blacks. Yet the insanity on this issue continues.
Are those regulations premised on equal treatment under the law or under some other criterion?Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of places that have had gay marriage legalized for years now and yet there are no fathers marrying daughters or polygamous marriages on the books. Look north. No churches have been sued either. That hasn't meant that there hasn't been controversy.
Quote: kewljSo in my mind, every couple must have the rights to those same benefits. Now you could achieve that goal with civil unions as well as marriage and I personally would have been A-ok with that. I personally don't need to use that word "marriage", which has become so toxic and 'the right' seems so up in arms about as long as everyone is afforded the same opportunities to be treated equal.
I wouldn't dismiss it as a matter of semantics. Some states allow civil unions, yet the status of such couples is not the same as that of straight couples at least on the Federal level. That's not separate but equal, even. It's separate and unequal.
Besides, it's the "base" on the right that's up in arms. I favor getting the "base" discomfited and ratteld on both parties. It helps expose them both for the pragmatic, meme-loving, anti-liberty people they are.
It doesn't go anywhere near far enough to fix the unholy mess that is US immigration policy, but even a journey of 10,000 miles begins but with one step.
And now we'll get to hear condmenations from the Republican base over "amnesty." Also how this robs them of their right to overegulate the labor market (not couched in those terms), and how America needs to recreate the Berlin Wall writ large on her southern border (for double irony, display the Statue of Liberty when doing so). Lastly analysis from both sides about how the House GOP can't wait to shoot themselves in the head by wrecking it (again, not couched in such terms).
I expect the Democratic base will also be mad as hell (no massive welfare included, nor taxes on the rich, nor furhter punishment for the "1%", etc). If so, then the Senate possibly did something very right.
At least with the Supreme Court decision on DOMA, one salient point of the debate is moot.
Quote: NareedThe US Supreme Court pretty much struck down DOMA (the full name of that law is so nonsensical I won't repeat it).
So the poll is: how do you feel about it?
Of course when the headlines die down we'll get the full details. But this is a really, really, really good thing.
Facepalm
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/antonin-scalia-doma-gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision-93434_Page2.html#ixzz2XSaM92ec
Scalia has this right--the problem with this poll and with the written decision is that both manage to label those who disagree with gay marriage as bad people as opposed to people that simply feel differently about the subject. There is room for disagreement on this issue.
There is certainly room for disagreement on this issue. There is nothing stopping you from slipping a bed sheet over your head and putting on a pointed hat and marching around in tiny circles of anger because you think that a white person and a person of color shouldn't marry each other. That's perfectly fine. No one is stopping you from doing that. You may even find similar souls who don't think that you are bad people for doing so. Go ahead and knock yourself out.Quote: RonCScalia has this right--the problem with this poll and with the written decision is that both manage to label those who disagree with gay marriage as bad people as opposed to people that simply feel differently about the subject. There is room for disagreement on this issue.
What you can't do is prevent that couple from marrying under the law. The law may not discriminate the way Scalia and Thomas want it to. It's unconstitutional.
Quote: s2dbakerThere is certainly room for disagreement on this issue. There is nothing stopping you from slipping a bed sheet over your head and putting on a pointed hat and marching around in tiny circles of anger because you think that a white person and a person of color shouldn't marry each other. That's perfectly fine. No one is stopping you from doing that. You may even find similar souls who don't think that you are bad people for doing so. Go ahead and knock yourself out.
What you can't do is prevent that couple from marrying under the law. The law may not discriminate the way Scalia and Thomas want it to. It's unconstitutional.
"White only" signs and other racist stuff was arguable, for which reasonable people could disagree.
Nope, just doesn't sound right.
I like my "disagreements" to be conducted from equal platforms, not about whether one of us deserves to be on that platform, and the other doesn't. That sounds more like discrimination, for which reasonable people will not bow to. Ever.
Quote: s2dbakerWhat you can't do is prevent that couple from marrying under the law. The law may not discriminate the way Scalia and Thomas want it to. It's unconstitutional.
Very well said!
There are three kinds of people whose rights can be broadly restricted: minors, felons and those found to be mentally incompetent. There are reasons for this. No such reasons apply in the case in question.
Quote: rxwineI like my "disagreements" to be conducted from equal platforms, not about whether one of us deserves to be on that platform, and the other doesn't. That sounds more like discrimination, for which reasonable people will not bow to. Ever.
I like your metaphor. it's very expressive.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWhere is the "I don't care" choice?
+1
Quote: s2dbaker
What you can't do is prevent that couple from marrying under the law. The law may not discriminate the way Scalia and Thomas want it to. It's unconstitutional.
As long as it is a man and a woman then this is correct. What happened is the Supremes "found" a right for people who want to redefine society to fit their lifestyle choice.
You society is now redefined. Long live the new world order :)Quote: AZDuffmanAs long as it is a man and a woman then this is correct. What happened is the Supremes "found" a right for people who want to redefine society to fit their lifestyle choice.
Quote: s2dbakerYou society is now redefined. Long live the new world order :)
We have entered "Brave New World." Be careful what you wished for, you may not like the outcome.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs long as it is a man and a woman then this is correct. What happened is the Supremes "found" a right for people who want to redefine society to fit their lifestyle choice.
No, only a right when society is already redefined for the federal government not to put its hands over its ears and hum.
