Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 143

Thread: Fed Courts rules Calf. Prop 8 unconstitutional

  1. #91
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    If they get protected class its over. I like the direction its headed though because for the first time I think they still might get the "right" even if they aren't found to be protected. SCOTUS has had no interest so far in finding them to be protected. Scalia's opinion on that issue is funny to read. He actually makes the point that gays are "advantaged" instead of "disadvantaged." Classic Scalia.

    Good points. We've come a long way even since the victory that was Lawrence v. Texas.

    You know a lot about this: lawyer/law student or just interested?

    And not to say "I told you so" but go back and read the epic battle 2 sheds and I had on this back in 2003-2004. EPIC.

    hank

  2. #92
    No Good Bloody Seppo California Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Watching
    Age
    52
    Posts
    41,101

    Default

    Hahaha I remember that one.

    Like when Geezah and Hot Lips would go at it over specific gun rights cases...

  3. #93
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by California Joe View Post
    Hahaha I remember that one.

    Like when Geezah and Hot Lips would go at it over specific gun rights cases...
    Those were equally epic.

    hank

  4. #94
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hank View Post
    If they get protected class its over. I like the direction its headed though because for the first time I think they still might get the "right" even if they aren't found to be protected. SCOTUS has had no interest so far in finding them to be protected. Scalia's opinion on that issue is funny to read. He actually makes the point that gays are "advantaged" instead of "disadvantaged." Classic Scalia.

    Good points. We've come a long way even since the victory that was Lawrence v. Texas.

    You know a lot about this: lawyer/law student or just interested?

    And not to say "I told you so" but go back and read the epic battle 2 sheds and I had on this back in 2003-2004. EPIC.

    hank
    I'm still doing my undergrad, but law school's probably in the future. Looking at doing the LSAT and GRE in the fall, just to keep my options open. Having said that, we're studying free exercise cases right now in my conlaw class; if nothing else, this is good preparation for my test next week.

  5. #95
    No Good Bloody Seppo California Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Watching
    Age
    52
    Posts
    41,101

    Default

    You have to admit, we may actually be evolving in here a little bit...at least now we're all discussing the legalities of gay rights, not whether or not kids should be able to shoot other kids in the face during computer lab cause one of them is overly feminine and made a kissy face at the other one....

  6. #96
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    44
    Posts
    7,078

    Default

    There can't really be any debate about that, Joe. You touch my lipstick, I'll kill ya. . . .

    hank

  7. #97
    Milo Drinker of Death Flagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    15,152

    Default

    And to think that "milphotos.net hearts homos" without even having to host a single anti-harrassment *********** rights ********** awareness seminar.

    It's amazing really.....

    Because the world would have us believe that without suppressing our genetically predetermined racism and discrimination we simply can't compute live and let live.

    I'm looking forward to the day my wife and I can divorce and live in sin...then marry our great grandchildren for a brief minute before we die, leave them all our moneys, and give the tax man the f'n bird....so bring it...

    My personal feeling is that if homos want to marry each other...awesome......but you can't use the word marriage..........but partnership....life partners....or something brand new, artificial, and Kwanza-ey hell yeah...but the WORD marriage....sorry...that for heteros.

    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.

    So the rainbow tribe has my vote.....but I've got to put a rider on that bill regarding the word marriage.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Gleipnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    the calling darkness
    Posts
    6,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.
    And for those heteros who can not and/or have zero interest in reproducing? What shall we call that?

  9. #99
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gleipnir View Post
    And for those heteros who can not and/or have zero interest in reproducing? What shall we call that?
    Chief Justice John Roberts is married but has two adopted kids. What shall we call that?

  10. #100
    Waywickedcool Federal Ninja Laconian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Villa Gorilla
    Age
    52
    Posts
    15,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    And to think that "milphotos.net hearts homos" without even having to host a single anti-harrassment *********** rights ********** awareness seminar.

    It's amazing really.....

    Because the world would have us believe that without suppressing our genetically predetermined racism and discrimination we simply can't compute live and let live.

    I'm looking forward to the day my wife and I can divorce and live in sin...then marry our great grandchildren for a brief minute before we die, leave them all our moneys, and give the tax man the f'n bird....so bring it...

    My personal feeling is that if homos want to marry each other...awesome......but you can't use the word marriage..........but partnership....life partners....or something brand new, artificial, and Kwanza-ey hell yeah...but the WORD marriage....sorry...that for heteros.

    Gay folks have all kinds of cool words for their specific community.....I suspect words related to rather disgusting and perverted ****** activities that can only occur between consenting homos...that's OK.....same as them sharing benefits/advantages of a couple....but the word marriage...I reckon that's for folks who can physiologically reproduce together.

    So the rainbow tribe has my vote.....but I've got to put a rider on that bill regarding the word marriage.
    I actually agree with this. I don't know if it's the case with all denominations of all religions, but if a couple were married in a civil ceremony instead of a church ceremony, the "marriage" wasn't accepted in the eyes of the church and the couple were considered living in sin. I know a lot of couples that did both.

    I think civil unions and even common law partners should enjoy all the same privileges, tax breaks, and misery that comes with marriage and divorce. But it ain't marriage.

    I also think it's ironice that probably 30-40 years ago, the gay community was making fun of marriage, calling it a dead institution, squaresville, etc. and now they want in.

  11. #101
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    24,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconian View Post
    I actually agree with this. I don't know if it's the case with all denominations of all religions, but if a couple were married in a civil ceremony instead of a church ceremony, the "marriage" wasn't accepted in the eyes of the church and the couple were considered living in sin. I know a lot of couples that did both.

    I think civil unions and even common law partners should enjoy all the same privileges, tax breaks, and misery that comes with marriage and divorce. But it ain't marriage.

    I also think it's ironice that probably 30-40 years ago, the gay community was making fun of marriage, calling it a dead institution, squaresville, etc. and now they want in.

    I concur.

    Probably the desire to have a "marriage" is probably more emotional than anything else. 30-40 years ago the national intolerance towards **********s was much more extreme, even between family members were on member was found out to be gay. Today, there is far great acceptance. Also the act of marriage is a celebration a social union, lots of emotions. For a gay couple, it can be a attempt to feel socially normal. To bring their families into a emotional bond with their partner. To a lot of other people, the meaning of the word, "marriage" has a religious attribute attached to it. Not much different than gays forming their own churches 40 years ago. While a person may be se xaully orientated different, the may be orientated with all the other social values of non-gay people. That means a desire to fulfill those values. Home, family, acceptance, etc. I don't think most people want to be social outcasts. There is a desire to be normal. Often when someone ridicules normalcy, is because of this. I can have it, so I condemn it.

  12. #102
    Senior Member liberal cl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Are you always this obtuse?

    Yes, "putting in a federal law that knocks out laws designed to keep blacks from voting because, despite the fact that we passed the Civil War Amendments, people still decided it'd be a good idea to deny them their right to do so a hundred years later" would fall under equal protection/rights, privileges, and immunities. It's unfortunate that it took a federal law to make that guarantee clear. See also: the 14th Amendment.
    But in the case of voting rights, the 15th Amendment was front and center.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Somehow I don't see the parallels between the gay rights movement and the (relatively small) "let Mormons keep practicing bigamy until God decides they don't have to anymore because he wants Utah to be a state" movement. Mainly due to the entirely different circumstances, motivations, arguments for, and end games that the two movements are working under. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, however, demanded the same basic thing that the current-day gay rights movement demands: we want the same rights/abilities as everybody else. That's why the parallel is drawn. It's also valid.
    Expanding Marriage Law isn't a parallel ?

    As for your "Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this" comment, what was your source? This?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920416/posts

    Corretta King went on record supporting gay rights, by the way. Something tells me that a woman as dignified as her isn't simply courting for votes/press coverage, unlike Jesse Jackson. Your statement probably should have read "Some Black Civil Rights leaders take exception to this."
    MLK's own family is split on the issue:

    Martin Luther King Jr.'s youngest child lit a torch at her father's tomb last month to kick off a march advocating a ban on gay marriage, creating a strong image linking the slain civil rights icon to today's heated social debate.
    http://www.seattlepi.com/national/ar...ge-1164298.php

    In any case if there really was a parallel between gay rights and the 60's Civil Rights movement, then odds are most African Americans wouldn't have supported Prop 8 like they did.

  13. #103
    Senior Member Gleipnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    the calling darkness
    Posts
    6,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconian View Post
    I also think it's ironice that probably 30-40 years ago, the gay community was making fun of marriage, calling it a dead institution, squaresville, etc. and now they want in.
    There are still homosexual communities who think marriage and in many cases, even monogamy, is an undesirable, Christian value that they want nothing to do with.

    As for those homosexuals with Christian/traditional values, why deny them a chance to be just as boring and middle-class as 'everyone else'?

    ---

    I don't understand where we inherited this bizarre myth that marriage is and has only ever been a noble tradition between a man and a woman that hasn't changed through history.
    Across cultures and history the structure of the family and what marriage was for and meant to be has varied quite considerably.
    As can be expected, marriage has evolved as well.

    For those who perpetuate this cultural myth with certainty, I recommend (besides the two other books I mentioned earlier) the following book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Histo.../dp/067003407X

    If it is just about semantics and it is the word 'marriage' that is the sticking point-
    In all honesty, I wouldn't care what an EQUIVALENT union would be called- however, I doubt there can ever be a true equivalent as long as such a union is not recognized by federal law.

  14. #104
    Milo Drinker of Death Flagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    15,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gleipnir View Post
    And for those heteros who can not and/or have zero interest in reproducing? What shall we call that?
    Equipment Failure, Operator Error?

  15. #105
    Milo Drinker of Death Flagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    15,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    Chief Justice John Roberts is married but has two adopted kids. What shall we call that?
    Judicial Failure? End of the Genetic Line?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •