[P]

I understood Scalia's position - what I was wondering about was the majority's opinion. I thought that they would go off on enumerated powers and congressional overreach, but instead they started talking about due process.

[The Final Dakar]

Catching up on old threads/news but if I read correctly, an odd side-effect of the DOMA ruling is same-sex couples will get federal recognition in states that have gay marriage but not in states that have civil unions?

There's a situation that perfectly encapsulates why separate but equal doesn't work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

same-sex couples will get federal recognition in states that have gay marriage but not in states that <don't>

Isn't that the way it's already been regarding first cousin marriages?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isn't that the way it's already been regarding first cousin marriages?

Lord, I have no idea. Do US States not have consensus on that? Is it a purposeful Federal exemption? Legal loophole?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do US States not have consensus on that?

Indeed they don't:
Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it a purposeful Federal exemption? Legal loophole?

I did not try to learn the federal implications until now, and I can find nothing. It seems that maybe it is undefined, and the feds have never bothered to prosecute anyone before for tax fraud, who decides to treat their cousin-marriage as legit for federal tax reasons after moving across state lines. Who knows, perhaps the same will be true for gays?

[The Final Dakar]

Meanwhile in Russia...

After following the deputy to a nearby apartment, the man was handcuffed and booked into Parish Prison on a single count of attempted crime against nature.

Just kidding! Its Louisiana.

There had been no sex-for-money deal between the two. The men did not agree to have sex in the park, a public place. And the count against the man was based on a part of Louisiana’s anti-sodomy law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago.

District Attorney Hillar Moore III said his office refused to prosecute each one of the cases because his assistants found no crime had occurred. After inquiries from the newspaper last week, he arranged to meet with Sheriff’s Office investigators to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.

Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, denied that investigators had been misapplying the anti-sodomy law, which remains among the state’s criminal statutes.

“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Hicks said. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”

[subego]

Is it possible to make "cruising" illegal in a specific area, or are there constitutional barriers to that?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it possible to make "cruising" illegal in a specific area, or are there constitutional barriers to that?

It is at the airport in Minneapolis.

[Shaddim]

It's illegal at my local mall, the cops there will break that up lightning-quick. It's not about gays either, they'll ticket anyone who is out solely looking for strange and not there to shop.

[subego]

That's private property though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's private property though.

They've ticketed people along and on the road around the mall, though, and that's public.

[subego]

Interesting.

Sounds like a misdemeanor though.

Does the ticket say "cruising" (maybe "lewd behavior"), or does it go down as disorderly?

[Shaddim]

Lewd and lascivious, I believe, depending on the circumstance. Like I said, though, sexual orientation doesn't seem to be a factor, they cracked down across the board. Good thing too, I don't mind people getting their rocks off however they want, but it was way too congested around there.

[The Final Dakar]

Gautreaux issues apology, begins push to have La. law erased | News | The Advocate &mdash; Baton Rouge, LA

Amid a firestorm of criticism, Gautreaux said he would push to have the unenforceable portions of the law removed from the state’s criminal statutes — an effort some lawmakers said would be an uphill battle.

...

“I have informed all employees of the Sheriff’s Office they are not to use these unconstitutional laws.”

But state lawmakers and political observers predicted Monday there would be little legislative appetite to amend the antiquated anti-sodomy law or remove it from the criminal code.

“I think it’s a non-starter,” said Pearson Cross, who heads the University of Louisiana at Lafayette political science department. “I just can’t imagine anybody championing this in a legislature as conservative as this one.”

State Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge, said changing the crime against nature law would be difficult even if it were not a controversial issue.

“I don’t know if it’s anti-gay in the Legislature as much as they fear a fair amount of people who hold anti-gay sentiments,” Claitor said.

State Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Pearl River, said repeal would not be in line with “the sentiments of the majority of the people that I represent, and I agree with them on this.

“It would very difficult in this state, as conservative of family values as we have, for the legislators of this state to overturn that law.”

Louisiana: Our politicians aren't homophobic, but our constituents are! (Also one of our politicians is). I'm sure they have more important things to do, but geez, would removing an unconstitutional law really cause outcry?

Also, anti-sodomy is a family value?

---

Meanwhile, actually in Russia

Vitaly Milonov, the St. Petersburg politician who co-sponsored the bill that gave birth to the controversial ban, told Interfax that a Russian law, once approved by the federal legislature and signed by the president, cannot be suspended.

The IOC last week released its own statement, saying it received assurances from the Russian government that 2014 Winter Olympics attendees will not be subject to arrest under Russia's anti-gay law.

I'll be very surprised if the heat leading up to Olympics doesn't cause some kind of public declaration of safety. Or I imagine we'll see some sparse boycotts.

[subego]

Every sodomization is a lost opportunity to make a family.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Every sodomization is a lost opportunity to make a family.

That'd make a great bumpersticker.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Every sodomization is a lost opportunity to make a family.

Every sperm in a butt is a lost soul.

[subego]

Don't forget, sodomy is for the mouth too!

And to take things to their logical conclusion...

Bill Hicks: I've wiped out entire civilizations with a gym sock.

[Waragainstsleep]

This seems inevitable:

Every Sperm is Sacred - YouTube

[Chongo]

Not going happen eh?
Gay dads set for court challenge over church | Essex Chronicle Chelmsford

The other shoe, from non Mormons at that.

My two husbands - Salon.com

[The Final Dakar]

Christie Signs Bill Banning ‘Gay Conversion’ Therapy - Metropolis - WSJ

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill banning the practice of administering therapy to gay minors to convert them into being straight, according to state lawmakers.

Monday was the deadline for Mr. Christie to act on the bill banning “sexual orientation change efforts,” known as conversion therapy. The bill prohibits professional counselors from administering the therapy to those under the age of 18.

New Jersey is expected to become the first state with a ban in force, according to Garden State Equality, the state’s main gay group. California passed similar legislation, but it’s being challenged legally.

If I'm reading this right, conversion therapy is still a-ok for adults.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Christie Signs Bill Banning ‘Gay Conversion’ Therapy - Metropolis - WSJ

If I'm reading this right, conversion therapy is still a-ok for adults.

Likely. I'm not sure I understand why the government is compelled to intervene regardless. We can drug the shxx out of boys through therapy among other things, but the government must step in here? I don't get it. Sounds political -- Christie, like most other silly politicians, is mired in political minutia.

[subego]

I'll fully admit the subject is complicated, but I don't think your analogy holds up.

Most drugs stop working once you stop taking them, this does not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll fully admit the subject is complicated, but I don't think your analogy holds up.

Most drugs stop working once you stop taking them, this does not.

While "most" (read aspirin/ibuprofen) might fit your counter, I'm not sure I can agree when it comes to psychotropic drugs. There's all kinds of whack nonsense out there, why this?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll fully admit the subject is complicated, but I don't think your analogy holds up.

Most drugs stop working once you stop taking them, this does not.

Many (most?) anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, and psychostimulants cause physical, and permanent, changes in brain chemistry and structure (adjustment and migration of neural pathways). It's like, you can etch glass by hand (indoctrination), or with chemicals (drugs), but both change the surface forever, doesn't matter what process or agent is at work.

I agree with the bill, but I also feel that the previous drugs I mentioned are way, way over-prescribed, by orders of magnitude beyond what they should, especially to children.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I agree with the bill, but I also feel that the previous drugs I mentioned are way, way over-prescribed, by orders of magnitude beyond what they should, especially to children.

Male children.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Male children.

I think I'm missing the point. Is it that only boys get drugged? Or that the girls need that much drug but the boys don't? Or is this an analogy to gay therapy (they don't try to give gay therapy to girls? Or are the girls the only ones that need it?)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think I'm missing the point. Is it that only boys get drugged? Or that the girls need that much drug but the boys don't? Or is this an analogy to gay therapy (they don't try to give gay therapy to girls? Or are the girls the only ones that need it?)

Shaddim's view was that these drugs are WAY overprescribed and I added my view to mean; "especially to male children" as they constitute the majority of child prescriptions.

[Chongo]

I think this guy deserves his own thread.
DHS Employee Who Operates ‘Race War’ Site Also Has Video Calling Obama ‘Mulatto Faggot’ | Mediaite

War on the Horizon Race War Website - Ayo Kimathi DHS | Mediaite

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I think this guy deserves his own thread.
DHS Employee Who Operates ‘Race War’ Site Also Has Video Calling Obama ‘Mulatto Faggot’ | Mediaite

War on the Horizon Race War Website - Ayo Kimathi DHS | Mediaite

That dude is nuttier than a Snicker's bar.

OAW

Countdown to Fox News obsessing for weeks over the rantings of this loon and trying to link him to President Obama in 5, 4, 3 …..

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I think this guy deserves his own thread.

I think he deserves his own special place in hell.

[The Final Dakar]

Its so absurd I had to laugh.

[The Final Dakar]

I had no idea this was going on in Arizona. Isn't it one of the crazy conservative states?

Bernalillo Co. begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses | ABQJournal Online

The Bernalillo County Clerk joined clerks from the state’s other two population centers in recognizing same-sex unions after a judge Monday declared gay marriage legal.

State District Judge Alan Malott on Monday ruled New Mexico’s constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The decision comes on the heels of an order last week from a judge in Santa Fe that directed the county clerk there to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Two days earlier, the clerk in the southern New Mexico county of Dona Ana decided to recognize same-sex couples.

But after a short hearing in which neither the counties nor the state objected to the request, Malott also ruled on the broader lawsuit by that couple and five others seeking marriage licenses.

However, it’s uncertain whether clerks in the state’s 30 other counties, who were not defendants in the lawsuit, will use the judge’s ruling as a signal that they can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Assistant Attorney General Scott Fuqua said the decision wasn’t binding on clerks outside Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I had no idea this was going on in Arizona.

No one had any idea, because it's in New Mexico.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one had any idea, because it's in New Mexico.

I have no idea why I always get those two mixed up

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I had no idea this was going on in Arizona. Isn't it one of the crazy conservative states?

Supporting *-marriage is very conservative in many ways (eg fiscally, socially, etc), the only way it's not conservative is under the subtopic of religion. We shouldn't be at all surprised to see support of gay marriage among conservatives, in fact I'm always surprised when they don't support it.

[subego]

Mind. Blown.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Supporting *-marriage is very conservative in many ways (eg fiscally, socially, etc), the only way it's not conservative is under the subtopic of religion. We shouldn't be at all surprised to see support of gay marriage among conservatives, in fact I'm always surprised when they don't support it.

One here that does. Many more of my red-blooded peers do as well. Maybe I'm the product of growing up Red in a Blue state. Or maybe its because I'm actually closer to a libertarian then a conservative as its defined today....i just believe in live and let live, and that the gub'ment shouldn't be instructing us on how to live our private lives anyways.

Hell, i went shooting with a gay friend of mine the other day. He's always been hugely anti-gun and we always get in (friendly) political debates. I offered to bring him out with me just to see what all the fuss was about. Once we got him to go to the range and he got a taste of the sport of target practice he's softened his stance a little bit and asked me to let him know next time I'm bringing people out to the range .

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Supporting *-marriage is very conservative in many ways (eg fiscally, socially, etc), the only way it's not conservative is under the subtopic of religion. We shouldn't be at all surprised to see support of gay marriage among conservatives, in fact I'm always surprised when they don't support it.

At the risk of being callous, this strikes me as being semantic and obvious. We all know conservatism touts small government and that it runs headlong into hypocrisy via its religious roots in the US. The only thing I find surprising is people who claim to be more libertarian than conservative can't seem to endorse it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Hell, i went shooting with a gay friend of mine the other day. He's always been hugely anti-gun and we always get in (friendly) political debates. I offered to bring him out with me just to see what all the fuss was about. Once we got him to go to the range and he got a taste of the sport of target practice he's softened his stance a little bit and asked me to let him know next time I'm bringing people out to the range .

Conversion therapy is dangerous my friend, very dangerous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

One here that does. Many more of my red-blooded peers do as well. Maybe I'm the product of growing up Red in a Blue state. Or maybe its because I'm actually closer to a libertarian then a conservative as its defined today....i just believe in live and let live, and that the gub'ment shouldn't be instructing us on how to live our private lives anyways.

The thing many conservatives are grappling with is "civil unions for all" vs "SS marriage" vs "civil unions for gays, marriage for straights". I think the government needs to bail out of the whole "definitions" game.

[The Final Dakar]

Not that I think Republicans would shy away from the fight, but I can't wait to hear this argued against.

Veterans benefits for gay married couples still denied - Washington Blade - America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source : Washington Blade – America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source

In a letter dated Aug. 14, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki says gay veterans are currently unable to receive the federal benefits of marriage because of Title 38, a portion of the U.S. code governing veterans benefits that defines spouse in opposite-sex terms independent of DOMA.

“Certain provisions in title 38, United States Code, define ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ to refer only to a person of the opposite-sex,” the letter states. “Under these provisions, a same-sex marriage recognized by a State would not confer spousal status for purposes of eligibility of VA benefits. Although the title 38 definition of ‘spouse’ and ‘surviving spouse’ are similar to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provision at issue in United States v. Windsor, no court has yet held the title 38 definitions to be unconstitutional.”

However, the letter does indicate that a gay couple that marries in one state, travels to another that doesn’t recognize the union won’t be able to receive veterans benefits if they apply for them there.

“You also inquired about VA’s ability to recognize a marriage based on its validity in the state of celebration, without regard to the laws of state of residence,” Shinseki says. “A same-sex spouse whose marriage to a Veteran was valid in the state where the parties resided at the time they entered the marriage would not meet the definition under [Title 38] for purposes of VA benefits.”

Shinseki’s letter was in response to an inquiry from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who made the Obama administration’s letter public on Tuesday. She’s the co-sponsor of the Charlie Morgan Act, a bill that would change U.S. code to ensure gay veterans in legal same-sex marriages can receive spousal benefits.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The thing many conservatives are grappling with is "civil unions for all" vs "SS marriage" vs "civil unions for gays, marriage for straights". I think the government needs to bail out of the whole "definitions" game.

We've discussed this before but I don't think I ever asked flat-out: Which do you think would be easier to get everyone to agree to, Gay marriages or all civil unions?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not that I think Republicans would shy away from the fight, but I can't wait to hear this argued against.

Veterans benefits for gay married couples still denied - Washington Blade - America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source : Washington Blade – America&#039;s Leading Gay News Source

I reject the entire premise of the government's argument. You should be able to name a beneficiary (spouse or otherwise). They should not care what their relationship is to you. They should be able to leave those bennies to their goldfish if they want to. Benefits packages that do not have beneficiaries named should automatically go to next of kin, with the definition of common-law spouse being applied to ANY two people who meet the definition.

Our veterans are constantly treated like shit by our government, who's too busy slipping pork and earmarks into bullshit laws.

I, for one, think that our vets deserve the highest care and every benefit of the doubt when it comes to their benefits. I believe that vets benefits should be deposited to a trust for whom the veteran can name his/her beneficiaries, while still alive or designated to be transferred upon death.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

We've discussed this before but I don't think I ever asked flat-out: Which do you think would be easier to get everyone to agree to, Gay marriages or all civil unions?

Good question. In theory, "Gay marriage" is more politically tenable than "Any/all marriage", but in practice there's no reason both situations; gay or straight couldn't be referred to as Civil Unions and the other scenarios would petition their cases over time as gays have. In other words, you don't have to champion sibling-marriage to support Civil Unions, but the language is open for that potentiality and it's a more accurate representation of the government's role in that relationship.

As an aside-- with regard to "equal marriage" or =, which do you think is more accurate; gay marriage or all civil unions?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

vs "SS marriage"

I draw the line at people in the secret police marrying.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As an aside-- with regard to "equal marriage" or =, which do you think is more accurate; gay marriage or all civil unions?

I'll pick equal marriage over Austria every time.



Don't forget to tip your waitress.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll pick equal marriage over Austria every time.

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

You're a silly goose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

At the risk of being callous, this strikes me as being semantic and obvious. We all know conservatism touts small government and that it runs headlong into hypocrisy via its religious roots in the US. The only thing I find surprising is people who claim to be more libertarian than conservative can't seem to endorse it.

Your post is typical of anyone who refuses to consider the merits of the opposition, who when confronted with green buds of consensus would rather squash them in pursuit of a more simplistic and homogeneous stereotype all the easier for use in pigeonholing. Tell me, when individuals of "the party" break the negative stereotypes leveled against "the party," is it better to encourage those who think different, or is it better to deny their legitimacy so as not to damage the stereotype itself? Which of those reactions contributes to common ground and which to gridlock? Which contributes to ultimate defeat of objectively bad ideas and which to stubborn partisanism? Which encourages and rewards those individuals for sticking their neck out in support of causes that you supposedly also support, and which discourages and punishes those people who might be inclined to do that? By reasserting the stereotype, all you're doing is giving yourself an excuse to bemoan the dearth of people willing to do the thing you're actively discouraging them from doing.

Callous? No not callous. Biased. Anyone who might be inclined to come over to your side, you would push them away with name-calling and prejudging them hypocrites who won't be capable of seeing the value of a good reasoned argument.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Good question. In theory, "Gay marriage" is more politically tenable than "Any/all marriage"

Okay, then we agree.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As an aside-- with regard to "equal marriage" or =, which do you think is more accurate; gay marriage or all civil unions?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The term "gay marriage" exists purely to differentiate the issue for discussion. In day-to-day life, no refers to Ellen being "gay married" or a straight couple who had a ceremony performed by the JoP as being in a "civil union."

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your post is typical of anyone who refuses to consider the merits of the opposition, who when confronted with green buds of consensus would rather squash them in pursuit of a more simplistic and homogeneous stereotype all the easier for use in pigeonholing. Tell me, when individuals of "the party" break the negative stereotypes leveled against "the party," is it better to encourage those who think different, or is it better to deny their legitimacy so as not to damage the stereotype itself? Which of those reactions contributes to common ground and which to gridlock? Which contributes to ultimate defeat of objectively bad ideas and which to stubborn partisanism? Which encourages and rewards those individuals for sticking their neck out in support of causes that you supposedly also support, and which discourages and punishes those people who might be inclined to do that? By reasserting the stereotype, all you're doing is giving yourself an excuse to bemoan the dearth of people willing to do the thing you're actively discouraging them from doing.

Callous? No not callous. Biased. Anyone who might be inclined to come over to your side, you would push them away with name-calling and prejudging them hypocrites who won't be capable of seeing the value of a good reasoned argument.

On a serious note, what I gather from that diatribe is that I am a bad person for not being surprised at something that "surprises" you. It's basically theory vs. reality and very much feels like an artificial argument.