MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Warning: This thread is pretty gay (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/495866/warning-this-thread-is-pretty-gay/)

 
The Final Dakar Dec 11, 2012 07:22 AM
Warning: This thread is pretty gay
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f7b_story.html

Quote
The Supreme Court put itself at the center of the nation’s debate over whether gay couples have the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexuals, agreeing Friday to review state and federal efforts to preserve a traditional definition of husband and wife.
Quote
The court was almost obliged to review the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and withholds federal benefits from same-sex couples legally married in the states where they live. The law affects things such as health insurance, taxes and medical leave.
Quote
But the court took a bold step in agreeing to review a lower court’s ruling overturning Proposition 8, the 2008 measure in which Californians amended their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The referendum came after the state Supreme Court had ruled that there was a right to same-sex marriage and 18,000 couples had taken advantage of the move.

The decision to take the California case raised the possibility that the court would grapple directly with fundamental questions about the right to marry.
Quote
The court was in a tricky legal area in deciding what to do about DOMA. The Obama administration normally would defend a law passed by Congress but would prefer that this one be found unconstitutional. The Republican leadership in the House has hired Paul D. Clement, the former solicitor general who argued the challenges to the Affordable Care Act earlier this year, to defend DOMA.

From several possibilities, the court chose the case of Edith “Edie” Windsor, 83, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Windsor had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after her partner of 44 years died in 2009. Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in 2007 in Canada and lived in New York. If Windsor had been married to a man, she would not have owed the tax payment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said that deprived Windsor of her constitutional right to equal protection. It also said the law should be subjected to a legal standard called “heightened scrutiny” because it unfairly discriminated against gay men and lesbians, the first time a court had made such a finding.
---

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fdb1e42b89812c

Quote
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
Quote
Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at freshman Duncan Hosie's question.
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
---

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-co...?post=55103548

Quote
Normally, sex-specific marks that are triggered during early fetal development work to protect boys and girls in the womb from undergoing too much natural variation in testosterone, which should normally happen later in a pregnancy. Epigenetic processes prevent female fetuses from becoming masculinized when testosterone exposure gets too high, and vice versa for males.

Moreover, epi-marks also protect different sex-specific traits from swinging in the opposite direction; some affect the genitals, others sexual identity — and others affect sexual orientation. And at the same time, these epi-marks can be transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters, or mothers to sons — which can cause reversed effects like the feminization of some traits in boys (like sexual preference), or a partial masculinization of girls.

Essentially, Rice and Friberg have discovered the presence of "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks — which sometimes carryover to the next generation and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.
---

So where do I begin? I suppose the obvious is take predictions on the SC cases and what happens there. I don't see DOMA being upheld. The California case is more tricky, and I suppose odds are on a more narrow interpretation than something wide-reaching. I just don't see the court taking on the case and upholding gay marriage bans when this is likely to be overturned in the next 20 years (i.e. gay marriage is coming sooner or later. I would love to hear from someone who thinks this isn't the case. Well, not love. Their argument would probably make my brain explode).

I can't pretend to really understand the last article, how impactful it is (Is it a theory? Correlation?). I'm just waiting for the genetic defect card to be played.
 
subego Dec 11, 2012 07:27 AM
Wouldn't flipping the California case gut their referendum system?
 
The Final Dakar Dec 11, 2012 07:31 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4206035)
Wouldn't flipping the California case gut their referendum system?
I'm the last person to understand legal ramifications. What would happen if they passed a referendum against gay sex or inter-racial marriage?

Nevermind that I think this would be at the very least more palatable if it required a supermajority.
 
subego Dec 11, 2012 08:16 AM
This just in: California is stupid.
 
Shaddim Dec 11, 2012 08:25 PM
It'll likely fall on the side of states' rights, since this is Roberts' court.
 
OreoCookie Dec 11, 2012 08:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4206035)
Wouldn't flipping the California case gut their referendum system?
Why? No referendum can force an unconstitutional law be put into effect. There is no difference to legislature passing a law which is later found to be unconstitutional.
 
subego Dec 12, 2012 03:48 AM
Good point.
 
The Final Dakar Dec 12, 2012 04:06 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4206211)
It'll likely fall on the side of states' rights, since this is Roberts' court.
What does that mean for DOMA?
 
subego Dec 12, 2012 04:35 AM
Christ. That should have never left committee.

Shame on you, Willie!
 
raleur Dec 12, 2012 10:57 AM
Wow, that's a lot of information for one post!

If I had to guess, the Court took the case for a couple of reasons:

First, they might want to take on the question of propositions that try to make an end-run around established law (they never got to hear Prop 187, for example), and uphold the Circuit Court's rejection of Prop 8.

Second, I imagine they want to look at this "heightened scrutiny" standard that the Appeals Court raised- probably so they can shoot it down. They may tackle DOMA in addition to this, but could just as easily let it fall on its own.

But who knows- sometimes they get a bee in their bonnet- they may wish to return to some questions about "legislating morality"- I don't think Scalia's remarks were a coincidence, although he's definitely in the minority (his reply to that kid's question is itself a reductio ad absurdum).

As for the last article, I doubt it will make a difference- just toss it on the very big pile of conflicting studies of homosexuality.
 
ironknee Dec 12, 2012 07:02 PM
If gays get to marry the right way, my god....straight people will get divorces
 
besson3c Dec 19, 2012 10:42 PM
The concept of being able to legislate based on morality is troublesome.

For starters, those that go on about how important freedom is should not want to support this notion no matter how they feel about the issue at hand. Moreover, I'd argue that leaving morals out of the picture entirely with an issue like murder would still make it difficult to condone due to the economic and societal impact on an unexpected death of this nature.

Moreover, how is homosexuality a moral issue if you leave out religion? If religion didn't exist no doubt nobody would care. It is not a moral issue, it is a religious issue, and we should not be in the business of pushing legislation that favors one religious ideology over another.
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 20, 2012 05:33 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4207890)
If religion didn't exist no doubt nobody would care.
I think the human impulse to isolate other groups of humans for ridicule runs deeper than religion :(
 
The Final Dakar Dec 20, 2012 05:35 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4207942)
I think the human impulse to isolate other groups of humans for ridicule runs deeper than religion :(
Or lacking empathy for those you don't understand.
 
The Final Dakar Dec 20, 2012 08:39 AM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner...state-sanction

Quote
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he can accept the "reality" of marriage between same-sex couples as a "legal document issued by the state" — as strong a sign as any that the landscape for marriage equality has changed dramatically in the past year.
Quote
Gingrich "continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman," Sam Stein and Jon Ward report, but "suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a 'marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state' -- the latter being acceptable."

Of the change, though, Gingrich said, "I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with."
Quote
Regarding the time when Gingrich served as House speaker and the Defense of Marriage Act, now before the Supreme Court, was put up for debate, he said, "I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."
Several others involved in the 1996 law's passage — including Rep. Bob Barr, who sponsored the legislation, and President Clinton, who signed it into law — have since said that they now oppose DOMA and support marriage equality.
Newt thinking the SCOTUS cases will go poorly and trying to soften the blow for his fellow republicans?




Quote
[They] could accept a distinction between a 'marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state
When was the case for gay marriage ever different? ****ing strawmen.
 
subego Dec 20, 2012 08:54 AM
Mighty white of him.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 3, 2013 09:18 AM
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/l...day/41030.html

Quote
Illinois Senators may be voting on marriage equality as early as this morning, after backers of bill changed course and tacked marriage equality onto another bill already scheduled for vote.
Illinois Senators will no longer be voting on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, a bill that LGBT leaders had been working for months to gain support on. Instead, the legalization of gay marriage had been added as a Senate amendment to HB4963, a bill that deals with automobile rentals and the Collateral Recovery Act, according to Equality Illinois CEO Bernard Cherkasov.

The move comes after Senate Democrats failed to secure enough votes to waive a 24-hour rule on the posting of the bill Wednesday night. That could have delayed a vote on marriage a day or more.
 
subego Jan 3, 2013 09:25 AM
About ****ing time. Seriously. Our legislature is a waste of air.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 3, 2013 09:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4210016)
About ****ing time. Seriously. Our legislature is a waste of air.
My governor just sued the NCAA because they punished Penn State.
 
subego Jan 3, 2013 10:14 AM
You have an excuse. We're supposed to know better.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 3, 2013 10:16 AM
What's our excuse?
 
subego Jan 3, 2013 10:40 AM
Pennsylvania.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 3, 2013 11:15 AM
I figured it was a slur against the state. At least we haven't been electing future prisoners to the governorship.
 
subego Jan 3, 2013 11:37 AM
We are worse at not getting caught than most states.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 3, 2013 11:39 AM
You guys lost all credibility for electing someone with this hair

 
leekohler2 Jan 20, 2013 02:52 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4210057)
You guys lost all credibility for electing someone with this hair

Oh lord. He lived in my neighborhood before he got carted off to prison. He would always be jogging around. What a creep.
 
olePigeon Jan 21, 2013 01:09 AM
I love the double standards. It's unthinkable to change the Constitution regarding people's rights to own guns, but perfectly acceptable to change the Constitution regarding people's rights to get married.
 
Shaddim Jan 21, 2013 03:31 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4212873)
I love the double standards. It's unthinkable to change the Constitution regarding people's rights to own guns, but perfectly acceptable to change the Constitution regarding people's rights to get married.
Acceptable? No. Easier? Probably.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 21, 2013 10:03 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4212873)
It's unthinkable to change the Constitution regarding people's rights to own guns,
It's not unthinkable at all, it's just not supported. It's supposed to be too hard to change without support. Taking away people's rights without their support is supposed to be hard, and ditto adding them. Easy come easy go, and I wouldn't want it to be "easy go," so I'm not lamenting the fact that it's not "easy come."
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 21, 2013 11:10 AM
I suggest a compromise. Invent a new term for same sex marriage, legally define it to be the as marriage.
For the conservatives they keep the biblical definition of marriage.
For the liberals they get insurance coverage, family status for visitation rights.
For the politicians they get 'xxxxxxx' filing jointly on the income tax form.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 21, 2013 11:16 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4212937)
I suggest a compromise. Invent a new term for same sex marriage, legally define it to be the as marriage.
Why? If it walks like a duck, etc. Do we have to come up with new terms for Husband and Wife? Won't all this be ignored in practice, anyway?
 
leekohler2 Jan 21, 2013 01:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4212937)
I suggest a compromise. Invent a new term for same sex marriage, legally define it to be the as marriage.
For the conservatives they keep the biblical definition of marriage.
For the liberals they get insurance coverage, family status for visitation rights.
For the politicians they get 'xxxxxxx' filing jointly on the income tax form.
You're missing the point. The religious object to any legal recognition of same sex relationships. What it's called is irrelevant to them, even though they claim the opposite. Here in Illinois, when civil unions became legal, the religious right went insane. Check it out:

Catholics Oppose Civil Unions In Illinois: Cardinal George, Catholic Conference Speak Out
 
Atheist Jan 21, 2013 02:02 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4212937)
I suggest a compromise. Invent a new term for same sex marriage, legally define it to be the as marriage.
For the conservatives they keep the biblical definition of marriage.
For the liberals they get insurance coverage, family status for visitation rights.
For the politicians they get 'xxxxxxx' filing jointly on the income tax form.
And while we're at it... let's make separate bathrooms for black people. That way they still get to go to the bathroom but white people don't have be bothered by them....
 
leekohler2 Jan 21, 2013 02:09 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Atheist (Post 4212956)
And while we're at it... let's make separate bathrooms for black people. That way they still get to go to the bathroom but white people don't have be bothered by them....
The problem is- the religious right would not even allow us to have our own bathroom, so to speak.
 
Waragainstsleep Jan 21, 2013 07:06 PM
Using these kind of dishonest objections is quite common. Any time someone is arguing a position that they know to be bigoted or downright stupid (or as they will tell you - they know others will see their position this way), they will often come up with a way to object that doesn't make them look quite so bad.

Arguing biblical definitions of marriage is a good example, you could argue that Intelligent Design is another. Lots of people are citing mental heath reform as a better alternative to new gun restrictions and at least some of them are just trying to appear more reasonable than just demanding to keep their favourite toys.

These arguments are almost always flimsy. A biblical definition of marriage is utterly irrelevant to US law due to separation of church & state and the fact that other religions have marriage too. Also, marriage predates Christianity by a long way so it has no right to claim any authority over the definition.
 
turtle777 Jan 21, 2013 07:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep (Post 4213003)
These arguments are almost always flimsy. A biblical definition of marriage is utterly irrelevant to US law due to separation of church & state and the fact that other religions have marriage too. Also, marriage predates Christianity by a long way so it has no right to claim any authority over the definition.
LOL, I know you tried to tear down the relevance of marriage, especially when looked at in a Christian context.

But you actually achieved the total opposite.

I'll accept marriage to include gays when you show me how this has been customary among different people groups and different religions through the course of thousands of years.

-t
 
leekohler2 Jan 21, 2013 07:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4213004)
LOL, I know you tried to tear down the relevance of marriage, especially when looked at in a Christian context.

But you actually achieved the total opposite.

I'll accept marriage to include gays when you show me how this has been customary among different people groups and different religions through the course of thousands of years.

-t
Here's the cool thing- no one cares if you accept anything. Marriage will include gay people across the entire country soon enough. None of us are looking for your approval or acceptance. To try to get acceptance form people like you is like beating our heads against the wall. All we want is to be treated equally under the law. And that will happen, whether you like it or not.

That's the great thing about the US- it's a free country and rights are not subject to individual approval or acceptance.
 
turtle777 Jan 21, 2013 08:57 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by leekohler2 (Post 4213006)
Here's the cool thing- no one cares if you accept anything. Marriage will include gay people across the entire country soon enough. None of us are looking for your approval or acceptance. To try to get acceptance form people like you is like beating our heads against the wall. All we want is to be treated equally under the law. And that will happen, whether you like it or not.

That's the great thing about the US- it's a free country and rights are not subject to individual approval or acceptance.
Hence, I don't give a rat's ass about what you think.

-t
 
leekohler2 Jan 21, 2013 10:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4213016)
Hence, I don't give a rat's ass about what you think.

-t
You cared enough to post. ;)
 
Face Ache Jan 22, 2013 12:48 AM
 
The Final Dakar Jan 22, 2013 09:52 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4213004)
I'll accept marriage to include gays when you show me how this has been customary among different people groups and different religions through the course of thousands of years.

-t
Heh, I thought libertarians believed in freedom.
 
leekohler2 Jan 22, 2013 10:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4213078)
Heh, I thought libertarians believed in freedom.
Only for people like them. Didn't you get the memo? ;)
 
subego Jan 22, 2013 03:51 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by turtle777 (Post 4213004)
LOL, I know you tried to tear down the relevance of marriage, especially when looked at in a Christian context.

But you actually achieved the total opposite.

I'll accept marriage to include gays when you show me how this has been customary among different people groups and different religions through the course of thousands of years.

-t
Tear down the relevance?

What the **** does that mean?
 
The Final Dakar Jan 22, 2013 03:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4213148)
Tear down the relevance?

What the **** does that mean?
Something something sacred?
 
raleur Jan 22, 2013 05:11 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4213148)
Tear down the relevance?

What the **** does that mean?
It was ugly- little bits of relevance all over the place, even some relevance stains ground into the carpet. Those will never come out.

Geeze, learn to read.
 
subego Jan 22, 2013 05:24 PM
Dammit!

My decorator told me the terrazzo would have been fabulous.
 
Snow-i Jan 22, 2013 05:42 PM
Still don't understand why everyone is bickering so much about it.


Just change the freaking legal name of marriage under the law to civil union. Leave marriage at the church where you are free to believe whatever you want about the bible, marriage, etc.

Live and let live....both sides.
 
leekohler2 Jan 22, 2013 05:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4213168)
Still don't understand why everyone is bickering so much about it.


Just change the freaking legal name of marriage under the law to civil union. Leave marriage at the church where you are free to believe whatever you want about the bible, marriage, etc.

Live and let live....both sides.
I've explained this before- that won't satisfy the religious right. There goal is the denial of any legal recognition of our relationships. They say it's the word "marriage that bothers them, but that's not true. See link below.

David Ormsby: Cardinal George Opposition to Illinois Civil Unions Swept Aside, Illinois House Partially Undoes an Injustice
 
lpkmckenna Jan 22, 2013 05:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4213168)
Just change the freaking legal name of marriage under the law to civil union. Leave marriage at the church where you are free to believe whatever you want about the bible, marriage, etc.
That is an idiotic non-solution. It literally accomplishes nothing.

Two straight people marry at a Catholic church: marriage
Two gay people marry at a UU church: marriage
Two straight people marry at a court house: civil union
Two atheist straight people marry at a church to make their parents happy: marriage

The term "civil union" was devised to give the same marriage rights to gays by stealth, basically fooling religious people into looking the other way. It was a temporary strategy to accomplish a political goal. Now you want to redefine civil union to mean not gay marriage, but non-religious marriage? Sorry, just because you were fooled by the "civil union" slight-of-hand doesn't mean we will be.

I am an atheist. I will never marry in a church. But goddamn it, you will never deny me the legal right to call it marriage just because you don't like gay people.
 
subego Jan 22, 2013 06:34 PM
Gee. That was uncalled for.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2