[subego]

I heard someone venture forth the idea our parents (the boomers) have left us (gen-x and the millennials) in the house alone for the first time, so we're finally doing all the things we've been saving up for this moment.

Order pay-per-view.
Ice cream for breakfast.
Legalize gay marriage.


Pot is clearly going to be the next one down, but what's going to follow?

[The Final Dakar]

Does gay marriage count if it was mostly judicial?

I mean, yeah, popular opinion has swung dramatically, but I'm not sure it'd be proactive enough to push it through legislatively. Pot on the other hand... on the ballot in like 10 states next year, I've read.

[osiris]

We still can't legally publicly fornicate.

[The Final Dakar]

I would say the minimum wage hikes going on in localities might be an example.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Does gay marriage count if it was mostly judicial?

I mean, yeah, popular opinion has swung dramatically, but I'm not sure it'd be proactive enough to push it through legislatively. Pot on the other hand... on the ballot in like 10 states next year, I've read.

His argument was, and I don't really disagree, the court made its decision based on public opinion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

His argument was, and I don't really disagree, the court made its decision based on public opinion.

Flog me if you don't like this derail, but I find in interesting that Loving was overturned with a 9-0 vote and it took 20 years before a majority of americans were ok with interracial marriage, and gay marriage just got by 5-4 years after it passed majority support.

Edit: What I'm getting at is, if the court was really reflecting popular opinion, then the Chief Justice should have signed on; Instead he used that occasion to mark the first time he publicly read a dissent and made it sound like he wasn't completely opposed to the concept.

Counterpoint 2: Do you really think the outcome would have been different if this case had taken place 10 years ago (Assuming similar partisan dynamics)? The four liberal justices would have voted the same and Kennedy would have still been the swing.

[subego]

I won't flog you, but I'll bask in the delicious, delicious irony before I answer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I won't flog you, but I'll bask in the delicious, delicious irony before I answer.

Irony?

[subego]

That the poster child of the anti-derail movement has been brought down into the sewer with the rest of us.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That the poster child of the anti-derail movement has been brought down into the sewer with the rest of us.

I already know that you will see the optics differently than I, because when don't you but:

1. I apologize in case you don't like it
2. I do so so you can say "no thanks" and I can decide start a new thread for it if need be.

I don't doggedly hunt down every derail but I do hate when people take umbrage to asking them to take it else where. I have no problem with you doing so with me. I also find the people this chafes most are people are are avoiding the topic.

Hence, my post applies under the Golden Rule.

[osiris]

I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Flog me if you don't like this derail, but I find in interesting that Loving was overturned with a 9-0 vote and it took 20 years before a majority of americans were ok with interracial marriage, and gay marriage just got by 5-4 years after it passed majority support.

Edit: What I'm getting at is, if the court was really reflecting popular opinion, then the Chief Justice should have signed on; Instead he used that occasion to mark the first time he publicly read a dissent and made it sound like he wasn't completely opposed to the concept.

Counterpoint 2: Do you really think the outcome would have been different if this case had taken place 10 years ago (Assuming similar partisan dynamics)? The four liberal justices would have voted the same and Kennedy would have still been the swing.

Roberts is getting the best of both worlds. He's going on record he likes the idea of gay marriage, but doesn't have to mutilate the 14th Amendment to do it.

10 years ago Kennedy would have swung no. There were few states where it was legal, and the government still reserved the right to fire you for being gay.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I already know that you will see the optics differently than I, because when don't you but:

1. I apologize in case you don't like it
2. I do so so you can say "no thanks" and I can decide start a new thread for it if need be.

I don't doggedly hunt down every derail but I do hate when people take umbrage to asking them to take it else where. I have no problem with you doing so with me. I also find the people this chafes most are people are are avoiding the topic.

Hence, my post applies under the Golden Rule.

1) I'm teasing you.
2) What prompts the teasing is your combination of anti-derail and pro-megathread. If we're (for example) going to go the "one, big gay thread" route, derails seem inevitable, and "take it somewhere else" is contrary to the environment which has been set up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Roberts is getting the best of both worlds. He's going on record he likes the idea of gay marriage, but doesn't have to mutilate the 14th Amendment to do it.

10 years ago Kennedy would have swung no. There were few states where it was legal, and the government still reserved the right to fire you for being gay.

I don't disagree outright, but the prosecution presents the following evidence into record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.[1]

The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard".[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The Court majority held that the Colorado constitutional amendment targeting homosexuals based upon animosity lacked a rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.

That is one interpretation you could use to strike down same-sex marriage, as well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6–3 ruling the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined. The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.
…
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a concurring opinion in which she offered a different rationale for invalidating the Texas sodomy statute. She disagreed with the overturning of Bowers—she had been in the Bowers majority—and disputed the court's invocation of due process guarantees of liberty in this context. Rather than including sexuality under protected liberty, she would strike down the law as violating the equal protection clause because it criminalized male-male but not male-female sodomy.

More rationale for gay marriage.

Hell, I'd say there was a non-zero chance O Connor might vote in favor of gay marriage!

That's why I think it's not about the kids being in control. This has been a long time coming from the oldies on the SCOTUS.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) I'm teasing you.

I'm very sensitive, some say that's a plus

Originally Posted by subego 

2) What prompts the teasing is your combination of anti-derail and pro-megathread. If we're (for example) going to go the "one, big gay thread" route, derails seem inevitable, and "take it somewhere else" is contrary to the environment which has been set up.

You are 100% correct in that regard. I could explain my reasoning some times, but its wholly subjective.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

10 years ago Kennedy would have swung no. There were few states where it was legal, and the government still reserved the right to fire you for being gay.

I'm inclined to agree. After all...

2008:

“I think it’s unnecessary,” Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

2012:

Well-- you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, I've-- I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that-- gay and lesbian-- Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell-- so that-- you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which-- tried to federalize-- what is historically been state law.
I've stood on the side of broader equality for-- the L.G.B.T. community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage-- in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and-- other-- elements that we take for granted. And-- I was sensitive to the fact that-- for a lot of people, you know, the-- the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.

I think the question with Obama is whether he actually disagreed with it in 2008, or if he disagreed publicly for political reasons, but privately agreed with it.

I don't believe Supreme Court Justices are swayed as often on social issues, but Kennedy seems to be an exception. He seems to mirror cultural tides. He would have voted no ten years ago.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't disagree outright, but the prosecution presents the following evidence into record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans



That is one interpretation you could use to strike down same-sex marriage, as well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas



More rationale for gay marriage.

Hell, I'd say there was a non-zero chance O Connor might vote in favor of gay marriage!

That's why I think it's not about the kids being in control. This has been a long time coming from the oldies on the SCOTUS.

This is where my inner Scalia pokes out of my tummy like Kuato.

Where did the SCOTUS get off saying gays are a protected class when the government gets to fire you for being gay? This is about as explicitly unprotected as you can get.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm inclined to agree. After all...

I think the question with Obama is whether he actually disagreed with it in 2008, or if he disagreed publicly for political reasons, but privately agreed with it.

The court is above this, however. That's why they're unelected. See: Current fall-out.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't believe Supreme Court Justices are swayed as often on social issues, but Kennedy seems to be an exception. He seems to mirror cultural tides. He would have voted no ten years ago.

Except he was expanding gay rights since the late 90s.

Originally Posted by subego 

Where did the SCOTUS get off saying gays are a protected class when the government gets to fire you for being gay? This is about as explicitly unprotected as you can get.

Same as gay marriage. 14th and Equal Protection Clause, I imagine. That's a different argument, however. It's worth noting the gays didn't get special (protected?) status in the Obergefell. But I wouldn't rule it out if some kind of ENDA case came up before them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm very sensitive, some say that's a plus

You are 100% correct in that regard. I could explain my reasoning some times, but its wholly subjective.

My subjective reason it's not an issue is I consider you enough of a force around here you merely posting on-topic is all it usually takes for a thread to straighten-out and fly right.

Especially if it's one of your own megathreads.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I consider you enough of a force

Why don't you just come out and say that I spam the PL!?!

I don't necessarily agree that I'm a force, but I am slightly embarrassed that every thread I participate in tends to have me as top poster. I don't think that indicates anything good.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The court is above this, however. That's why they're unelected. See: Current fall-out.

Except he was expanding gay rights since the late 90s.


Same as gay marriage. 14th and Equal Protection Clause, I imagine. That's a different argument, however. It's worth noting the gays didn't get special (protected?) status in the Obergefell. But I wouldn't rule it out if some kind of ENDA case came up before them.

You can't claim the 14th and the Equal Protection Clause applies to the states, but doesn't apply to the Federal Government.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why don't you just come out and say that I spam the PL!?!

I don't necessarily agree that I'm a force, but I am slightly embarrassed that every thread I participate in tends to have me as top poster. I don't think that indicates anything good.

I've noted this lack of faith you have in your posting ability, and FWIW, it's a total mystery to me.

I get crabby when you bail from a discussion because I wanted to hear what you had to say and am sad I won't get to.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can't claim the 14th and the Equal Protection Clause applies to the states, but doesn't apply to the Federal Government.

Are there examples of them actually doing this, though? Like gay marriage, I think this is a case of avoiding the conclusion until absolutely necessary.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've noted this lack of faith you have in your posting ability, and FWIW, it's a total mystery to me.

This is a personal flaw that transcends posting, trust me.

Originally Posted by subego 

I get crabby when you bail from a discussion because I wanted to hear what you had to say and am sad I won't get to.

I understand completely. Part of it is the past year or two my importance at work has increased and I can't just wander these halls like I used to. So I pick and choose my subjects.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are there examples of them actually doing this, though? Like gay marriage, I think this is a case of avoiding the conclusion until absolutely necessary.

Yes.

Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

When these decisions were made, the government could still fire you for being gay.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes.

Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

When these decisions were made, the government could still fire you for being gay.

No no, I'm asking are there any examples of the government actually firing people for being gay? I think we're at that happy medium where people either don't discriminate or if they do so they couch it well. If that peace were to be wrecked, I think you might see a change.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I understand completely. Part of it is the past year or two my importance at work has increased and I can't just wander these halls like I used to. So I pick and choose my subjects.

As long as you're comfortable with the result.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No no, I'm asking are there any examples of the government actually firing people for being gay?

Yeah. They fired the last 200 or so in 2010. The average for the first decade of the new millennium was 600 per year.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. They fired the last 200 or so in 2010. The average for the first decade of the new millennium was 600 per year.

I'm surprised this hasn't been news. Do you have a link to an article or something?

[subego]

You have heard it already.

Google "don't ask don't tell".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You have heard it already.

Google "don't ask don't tell".

Ah. I always took that as a special case – the military is looked upon as somewhat sacrosanct and its smooth operation seen as of upmost importance. I mean, weren't combat restrictions for women a violation of gender equality?

[Waragainstsleep]

Anyone think any other drugs will follow pot? Ecstasy maybe?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I heard someone venture forth the idea our parents (the boomers) have left us (gen-x and the millennials) in the house alone for the first time, so we're finally doing all the things we've been saving up for this moment.

Order pay-per-view.
Ice cream for breakfast.
Legalize gay marriage.


Pot is clearly going to be the next one down, but what's going to follow?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Does gay marriage count if it was mostly judicial?

I mean, yeah, popular opinion has swung dramatically, but I'm not sure it'd be proactive enough to push it through legislatively. Pot on the other hand... on the ballot in like 10 states next year, I've read.

Originally Posted by subego 

His argument was, and I don't really disagree, the court made its decision based on public opinion.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Flog me if you don't like this derail, but I find in interesting that Loving was overturned with a 9-0 vote and it took 20 years before a majority of americans were ok with interracial marriage, and gay marriage just got by 5-4 years after it passed majority support.

Edit: What I'm getting at is, if the court was really reflecting popular opinion, then the Chief Justice should have signed on; Instead he used that occasion to mark the first time he publicly read a dissent and made it sound like he wasn't completely opposed to the concept.

Counterpoint 2: Do you really think the outcome would have been different if this case had taken place 10 years ago (Assuming similar partisan dynamics)? The four liberal justices would have voted the same and Kennedy would have still been the swing.

Ultimate derail: Lets slide down the slippery slope.

Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News

"We're not even asking for acceptance, we're just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear," said Nathan Collier.

What It’s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

We plan to move to New Jersey where we can be safe under the law, since adult incest isn’t illegal there, and once I’m there I’ll tell everyone. I’ll call my mom and let her know that we are in love and we are having children.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ah. I always took that as a special case – the military is looked upon as somewhat sacrosanct and its smooth operation seen as of upmost importance. I mean, weren't combat restrictions for women a violation of gender equality?

For the courts (as opposed to the legislature) to declare something gets 5th and/or 14th Amendment protections, they need to show it's a "fundamental right". To do so, the court needs to show a tradition of it being considered a fundamental right.

If the military views engaging in the activity as immediate and unquestionable grounds for dismissal, you haven't reached the point where you can show a tradition of it being considered a fundamental right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ultimate derail: Lets slide down the slippery slope.

Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News



What It’s Like to Date Your Dad -- Science of Us

Said it before, bears repeating.

Polygamy should be legal.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

For the courts (as opposed to the legislature) to declare something gets 5th and/or 14th Amendment protections, they need to show it's a "fundamental right". To do so, the court needs to show a tradition of it being considered a fundamental right.

If the military views engaging in the activity as immediate and unquestionable grounds for dismissal, you haven't reached the point where you can show a tradition of it being considered a fundamental right.

You didn't answer my question, buddy.

Again, I'm not sure the military is a good reflection of societal mores.

[subego]

What "gender equality" law do you speak of?

Gender is a "suspect class" for equal protection, but there's not an equality law.

If you got fired because you have a vadge, that would be lawsuit city.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What "gender equality" law do you speak of?

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance.

Something like that.

I know that many military positions have strength requirements but I don't think that was the main concern in the discrimination.

Edit: Perfect example – Military Women Challenge Combat Exclusion Rule In Lawsuit Against Defense Department

A first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, a captain in the Marine Corps Reserves, a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserves and a major in the U.S. Air National Guard filed suit Tuesday against the Department of Defense, challenging its rules restricting women in combat under the Fifth Amendment.

the four servicewomen accuse the Defense Department of violating their rights to equal protection under the law by maintaining policies collectively known as the combat exclusion rule. Though the Pentagon is reforming the policies directed at servicewomen, the rules still bar women in the U.S. military from specific combat positions -- positions that are available to men.

[Jawbone54]

I'm interested in what you guys think. Is this right?

Oregon Issues Gag Order Against Christian Bakers Who Declined to Make ‘Gay Wedding’ Cake | Christian News Network

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries has issued a gag order against the Christian owners of a bakery in the state, banning them from speaking about their convictions not to participate in same-sex ceremonies by baking, decorating and delivering a cake for the event.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” the order, written by Commissioner Brad Avakian, reads.

But Klein states that he regularly serves homosexuals. He believes that there is a difference between serving homosexuals in general and having to personally facilitate same-sex ceremonies, which is an act of participation.

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” he said. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

“We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, noted.

In other words, they don't refuse to serve LGBT customers. They just decline to participate in weddings.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you got fired because you have a vadge, that would be lawsuit city.

Vag.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm interested in what you guys think. Is this right?

Oregon Issues Gag Order Against Christian Bakers Who Declined to Make ‘Gay Wedding’ Cake | Christian News Network

Somewhat misrepresented.
Cake wars: Oregon did not gag an anti-gay bakery.

He also noted that the bakers had granted an interview with hate-group leader Tony Perkins, which aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network. During the interview, Melissa Klein (of Sweet Cakes) stated: “We don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.” The broadcast also displayed a note taped to Sweet Cakes’ door, which directed readers to the store’s Facebook page and stated, in part: “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

These statements, Avakian held, clearly telegraph Klein’s intention to continue to refuse service to gay couples. That presents a new legal wrinkle, since under Oregon law, businesses may not “publish, circulate, issue or display” any “communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind” that suggests they will turn someone away because of their identity. It’s this law that prevents a hotel from declaring on its website “no interracial couples.” An individual hotelier, of course, retains his private First Amendment right to preach about God’s intent to separate the races—as the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia did. But when he’s speaking publicly in his official capacity as a hotelier, he may not declare that his business will refuse service to the public based on their identity.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

In other words, they don't refuse to serve LGBT customers. They just decline to participate in weddings.

If they say no wedding cakes, ever, I think they have a chance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Vag.

Silent Ds can suck it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Somewhat misrepresented.
Cake wars: Oregon did not gag an anti-gay bakery.




If they say no wedding cakes, ever, I think they have a chance.

When I hear "Tony Perkins" I think "gay actor from Psycho".

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Something like that.

I know that many military positions have strength requirements but I don't think that was the main concern in the discrimination.

Edit: Perfect example – Military Women Challenge Combat Exclusion Rule In Lawsuit Against Defense Department

I'm not sure who's argument this helps. If this is discriminatory, so was DADT.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure who's argument this helps. If this is discriminatory, so was DADT.

Errr... of course they both were. How was DADT not discriminatory?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Errr... of course they both were. How was DADT not discriminatory?

I mean legally considered discriminatory.

DADT wasn't. With this we'll never know because the military dropped the ban before the lawsuit could play out.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean legally considered discriminatory.

DADT wasn't. With this we'll never know because the military dropped the ban before the lawsuit could play out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Ca..._United_States

On September 9, 2010, Judge Phillips ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that DADT violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Noting the deference that courts are required to show the military in reviewing First Amendment claims, Phillips found that the "sweeping reach" of the restrictions placed on the speech of LGBT military personnel by DADT is "far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake". Phillips also found that DADT violates LGBT personnel's right of association, as it prohibits them from openly joining organizations like LCR for fear of reprisal, thereby depriving them of their ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. Phillips further ruled that DADT violates LGBT personnel's substantive due process rights, as articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, associated with the "'autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.'"

BTW, I want to highlight something"

Noting the deference that courts are required to show the military in reviewing First Amendment claims

This is what I mean when I say the courts are wary about messing with the military.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pot is clearly going to be the next one down, but what's going to follow?

How we treat the remnants of Confederacy, apparently. Tipping point to the extreme.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How we treat the remnants of Confederacy, apparently. Tipping point to the extreme.

You know, I wanted to bring up something related to this, but figured it wouldn't have enough oxygen in the flag thread, and it didn't merit its own.

Your comment made me realize this is the perfect place.


That flip happened so quickly and absolutely I was a little frightened by it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What's confusing to some is how someone can not be a part of something, or even agree with it, but still support its right to exist. Classical liberalism is dying and what it's being replaced with is dangerous (and horribly inconsistent).