quote:After years of debate and months of final preparations, the military can no longer prevent gays from serving openly in its ranks.
Repeal of a 1993 law that allowed gays to serve only so long as they kept their sexual orientation private took effect Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
I'll be blunt about this: Today is a sad and frustrating day for bigots, as:
1. homosexuals can no longer be discharged from the military over discovery of their sexual orientation. ::eagletear::
2. as a result, we get to find out that their premonitions and doomsaying over how this will 'hurt unit cohesiveness' or otherwise undermine the military and our society are exactly as dumb a cover for their homophobia as we expected they were.
The response was so completely predictable and telling that Free Republic has been forced to essentially delete all its threads on the event.
Here are some comments by the radical Left, not satisfied with the rate of damage they are inflicting upon our nation's vital institution of ensuring that gays know they are second-class citizens:
quote:Personally, I am actually disappointed it took this long to be repealed, and I think that for progressives like me, it's indicative of the Obama administration. A simple, no brainer, progressive ideal that took forever to get through the legislature, took forever to implement, and is forgot about and not celebrated or championed by the administration as it should be.
It one of the reasons why people like me are so frustrated and disappointed in the White House, but still have some small bit of hope for the future.
Here's some articles which can help give you a snapshot of this event and the frame by which the repeal's opponents need to be remembered:
quote:MILLS: You know, I really did not know what to do when I woke up on Tuesday morning. You know, I felt an extreme sense of relief, you know, not having to continue to worry and live under that stress.
But it was - having to live under that was so extreme that when I woke up and realized I didn't have to, you know, I did not know what to do with that. Since then, you know, the only way I can describe it is, you know, an extreme sense of relief from not having to lie if anyone, you know, ever approaches me and asks me, or if I'm ever put in that situation again.
But, you know, truly the - you know, the big change I thought would be on Tuesday, you know, there has that - we've all just been going on our job, you know, same as before.
CONAN: Same as before, and as far as you know, nobody's been panicked, nobody's been - the world has not come to an end?
MILLS: Absolutely not, absolutely not.
CONAN: I wonder, as you move forward now, have you told anybody?
MILLS: I have - well, I've written a couple of articles, and then several of my former co-workers and bosses have contacted me, you know, just to express their support and, you know, express their congratulations. But as far as, you know, me coming out and telling any of my current co-workers or my boss or anything, you know, no I haven't.
You know, I just haven't been put in that situation, and I think a lot of other gay service members will probably, you know, have the same opinion. You know, unless we're directly approached or put in a situation, you know, we're just going to go about our business and, you know, keep that, you know, to ourselves.
CONAN: A lot of people - for a lot of people that I've heard, and including some in Chris Heath's article, one issue that seemed to be important was the ability to put their boyfriend or girlfriend's picture on their desk.
MILLS: Absolutely, that is something that was very important to me, actually, and something that I've heard. You know, some of my friends say, you know, they're looking forward to the day when they can do that.
You know, a lot of places where we work, our co-workers will come in with things like that, you know, photos on their desks. They'll be able to talk about, you know, their weekends. And I've always kind of been jealous about them being able to do that and me not being able to share that with them like they're able to share with me.
So we are definitely looking forward to, you know, being able to just be open about that like we were not before.
[ June 26, 2015, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meh.
quote:In 1989, Michelle Douglas was discharged from her position in the military because she was, "not advantageously employable due to homosexuality." She challenged her dismissal on the grounds it was in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, noting the policy barring homosexuals from the Canadian military indeed violated the Charter. The Canadian government and military officials accepted the federal court decision with little resistance.
...
Allowing gays and lesbians in to the the Canadian military has apparently been a seamless exercise. A University of California study of the Canadian military's experience of allowing gays and lesbians into the military did not hurt morale, military readiness, or recruitment, as some conservatives in the U.S. argued.
The study, considered the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled, also notes none of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved "gay bashing" or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.
Today, allowing gays in the military is big news in the United States, which might have some Canadians wondering: "What's the big deal?" Hopefully, sometime in the not-so-distant future, Americans will wonder the same.
When I brought that up, the almost eerily universal response was to say that it just wouldn't be the same here, because America had a 'real military' with actual worldly responsibilities, and as a result needed a much more moral framework for its enlisted populace (chaplains, No Homo, etc).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As an active duty Marine, let me relate to you all the horrifying ordeal we went though on Tuesday when the repeal went through for us;
Our Gunny walked in, and in the middle of passing word said "oh, you're now allowed to be openly gay" He paused and we all looked around expectantly for about 5 seconds, then he finished his brief. And after 15 minutes of gay jokes, nobody mentioned it again.
Obviously, this repeal is having a massive detrimental effect on the morale and efficacy of our military.
Seriously, though, I realize there will be a rough period of adjustment over the next few years as more and more openly homosexual men and women join or come out, but I don't think it'll cause any serious problems. I don't come to work every day and loudly proclaim "I AM A HETEROSEXUAL! YES, I HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN!", I doubt gay service members will feel the equivalent. Bigotry on the part of homophobes may be an issue, but on the other hand I work with several people I personally can't stand and we get along just fine. Our military is professional enough to handle it.
The only people who really seem to have a problem with the repeal are Senior Enlisted and Field Grade/General Officers, typically 40 years or older. Just about everyone under 30 doesn't really care - we grew up in a more tolerant society. Obviously we still have bigots and people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons, but even they don't show the extreme discomfort and abhorrence older men seem to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I had to stop reading the OP because the "you know"s were driving me past the brink of sanity! I don't care if your gay, but I swear to god, if you utter the phrase "you know" one more time I'll beat the crap out of you!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Really? You think the only reason gay people out themselves is because they feel some need to share details of their sex lives with you?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
You (assuming male): "I'm going camping with my girlfriend this weekend."
Male Coworker: "Yeah? My boyfriend hates camping so I haven't been in a while."
You: "I prefer reverse cowgirl position."
Coworker: "Ummm... okay."
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
If I share the information with you that I went out to see a movie with my girlfriend over the weekend, you're right, I'm trying to make conversation and it would be polite to share a similar detail: say, that you cooked dinner for your wife.
See how I've explicitly outed myself? See how much information about my sex life I've shared?
[eta: Okay, Xavier beat me to it and said it better.]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Would talking casually about one's significant other the way heterosexu couples do all the time count as as an explicit admission?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I had a professor explain it to me this way 20 years ago. "There are only two reasons to by anti-gay. One is that you are afraid that members of the same sex will hit on you. The other is that you are afraid they won't."
Ok, that's just silly. Still, being able to bring a picture of your love and put it on your desk like all the others in the office, instead of having to bring a picture of your sibling and pretend, is a great step forward.
Booing the soldier in Iraq by some in the audience last night--is a step backward.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Would talking casually about one's significant other the way heterosexu couples do all the time count as as an explicit admission?
It did in the military.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
It's actually mandatory per S4 §22-410 of the PC Culture Inquisition Required Decorum, so, good guess, but honestly why would you think that?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I was making a joke about someone going out of their way at work to tell me "I am gay" because my first thought would be "I don't see how that effects me" or that I am supposed to share something about myself in turn. I was riffing off of Dogbreath's post about how he doesn't feel the need to overtly announce his sexuality and how it would be odd if someone did feel the need to yell out at work "HEY I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS AWARE BUT I AM GAY, THAT IS ALL."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Would talking casually about one's significant other the way heterosexu couples do all the time count as as an explicit admission?
It did in the military.
You had to be VERY careful. If anything surfaced, even a picture of you with a partner, that was the end of your career for many soldiers.
quote:Stacy Vasquez, who describes herself this way: "I like to say that I'm a government-certified homosexual."
Vasquez was a 30-year-old Army sergeant first class when she was discharged under don't ask, don't tell. Someone said they saw her kissing a woman at a gay bar, and that was the end of her career.
"It ended right in front of my eyes that day," she said. "That was a hard day."
quote:Vasquez made a name for herself being a gay soldier. But many others kept their sexual identity a secret — like U.S. Marine Maj. Darrel Choat.
This is the first time Choat has publicly acknowledged that he's gay. He wrote an essay set to be published in a book on don't ask, don't tell coming out in a few weeks. In it, he writes, "I am a patriotic American. I am an officer of the Marines who loves country, Corps and my Marines. I am doing the best to serve proudly and honorably and I happen to be gay."
NPR spoke with Choat at the suburban home he shared with his former partner. He was wearing his Marine fatigues. His hair was clipped short. Choat proudly showed off a photo of him and President Obama from 2010 when he worked at the White House as part of the ceremonial Marine detail.
Choat joined the Marine Corps 14 years ago when he was 34 years old. He had to get a waiver for his age, but the Nebraska native was dead set on being a Marine.
"You know, swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same — and I take that very seriously," he said.
When he signed up, Choat knew he was gay. But he also knew that joining the Marines meant keeping quiet about that part of his life.
"I was a little cavalier. I thought, 'Hey, I'm squared away, I know who I am, this isn't going to be a big deal.' And over time, it became a big deal and it's something that just kind of creeps up on you — the small compromises, the things that you do, how you have to bisect yourself, bisect your life."
Choat rose through the ranks. He did two tours in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 during some of the worst fighting of the war. He had personal relationships, but he kept them quiet. Then last year, everything changed. The Pentagon was reviewing don't ask, don't tell. The federal courts were weighing in. The commandant of the Marine Corps at the time, Gen. James Conway, said the vast majority of Marines would not want to room with someone who's openly gay. Choat didn't believe what he was hearing.
"When you've got senior leaders in the Marine Corps saying things about the Marines they've served beside and served with, you just think, 'What is going on here? Why are you disrespecting these Marines? Why are you disrespecting your Marines?' "
At that point, a year ago, Choat wanted to speak out but couldn't. So he found another way to get his message across. As a student at the Marine Corps University, he decided to write his thesis on don't ask, don't tell. He designed a survey to gauge opinion on the policy, and he sent it out to other Marines. He remembers sitting in front of the computer screen, right after he had pressed "send."
"I mean, it was just like this huge lump was in my throat, and I thought, 'Oh My God. What have I done? What have I done?' " he recalled.
After all, he was a single 47-year-old man who didn't talk about women.
"If I'm suddenly doing a thesis on don't ask, don't tell, I just thought this bright spotlight is going to be shining on me and people are going to start asking questions, 'Well, what's up with Choat?' You know? And I was afraid of that," he said.
But Choat admits that part of him wanted people to know. He set himself on a collision course, knowing full well that people were going to figure out that he's gay. And some did — though this is the first time he's talking publicly about it. He has gay friends in the military who told him not to go public — that it'll be the end of his career. And they are choosing to stay quiet.
"They don't want people to think less of them," he said. "They're afraid of friends turning their backs on them, so they're not going to come out."
Choat said he's not sure what happens next. But he said all of that talk about Marines threatening to leave the force over this issue is nonsense.
"When they say, 'Well, you know, I couldn't share a fighting position with a Marine that's gay,' or anything like that, I say, 'Wow. So gay Marines have that much power that they can totally disarm you and defeat you just by their simple presence? And you call yourself a Marine? Come on, dude. What's your problem? Get over it.' "
quote:"I expect some of them to shake my hand and say, 'Hey, don't care.' And I also expect others to, you know, not deal with me, not want to deal with me, to feel uncomfortable around me. I know they will. You know, so be it," he said. "I'm an American, I'm a Marine, I haven't done anything but serve my country honorably. That's it."
The Marine Corps ball is coming up in November. Choat says he's planning to go as he does every year. But this time, he's bringing a date.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I had a professor explain it to me this way 20 years ago. "There are only two reasons to by anti-gay. One is that you are afraid that members of the same sex will hit on you. The other is that you are afraid they won't."
Ok, that's just silly. Still, being able to bring a picture of your love and put it on your desk like all the others in the office, instead of having to bring a picture of your sibling and pretend, is a great step forward.
Booing the soldier in Iraq by some in the audience last night--is a step backward.
Obviously your professor wasn't familiar with the "bear" subculture of gay men, its been said that if Kevin Smith gave up his marriage and heterosexuality that he would be the Marilyn Monroe of bears.
When it comes to the military and being openly gay, I wonder what the political environment will be like for a career officer trying to advance in rank. Like Dogbreath mentioned, any of the malcontent with the repeal of DADT lies with the forty and up demographic who are typically the ones in charge. And it would be ridiculous if a soldier had to hide their family and home situation in protection of their career, it was silly before but post DADT... even worse.
Does anyone know what this means to soldiers who have been discharged via DADT? or if there will be any retro-active actions taken to honor the families of fallen soldiers who until late were not considered the same as the family of a straight soldier?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Does anyone know what this means to soldiers who have been discharged via DADT? or if there will be any retro-active actions taken to honor the families of fallen soldiers who until late were not considered the same as the family of a straight soldier?
I was wondering this myself.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I was making a joke about someone going out of their way at work to tell me "I am gay" because my first thought would be "I don't see how that effects me" or that I am supposed to share something about myself in turn. I was riffing off of Dogbreath's post about how he doesn't feel the need to overtly announce his sexuality and how it would be odd if someone did feel the need to yell out at work "HEY I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS AWARE BUT I AM GAY, THAT IS ALL."
I think the point I'm trying to make is it doesn't really come up explicitly at work in the first place. A lot of the detractors seemed to think DADT was all that stood between our current disciplined fighting force and degenerate chaos and homosex everywhere. In reality, all it changes is you might hear "hey Bob, what you up to this weekend?" "oh, going to the movies with my boyfriend, you?" or see some guys in your platoon walking around town holding hands in their off time.
There might be a little more tension in the field. I've never been on a FEX or field op with female enlisted (my specific job is restricted to males), but we went out with a female officer once and it worked out all right. She made a weird little tarp lean-to to dress and clean herself in, and we attempted to be slightly less vulgar. I'm sure each unit can adjust to their specific needs and comfort level. (I know in our SERE courses, for example, males and females are frequently nude in front of each other in survival situations and there haven't been issues)
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Last I heard (Months ago) is that it means nothing. The policy at the time was DADT. They Told, so they were removed. They policy may have changed but that doesn't undo their breaking of a policy.
Its like if we suddenly decided to admit all the immigrants who wanted to come to the US. Those who had crossed over illegally, would still be illegal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Does anyone know what this means to soldiers who have been discharged via DADT? or if there will be any retro-active actions taken to honor the families of fallen soldiers who until late were not considered the same as the family of a straight soldier?
as far as I know, they can reapply if still eligible. No guarantees, though — there's no restitution program in place.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: When it comes to the military and being openly gay, I wonder what the political environment will be like for a career officer trying to advance in rank. Like Dogbreath mentioned, any of the malcontent with the repeal of DADT lies with the forty and up demographic who are typically the ones in charge. And it would be ridiculous if a soldier had to hide their family and home situation in protection of their career, it was silly before but post DADT... even worse
As with the speedy and effective racial integration of the military in the late 40s, this is one of those things I think the military can actually handle better than the civilian world.
In the Marine Corps, Enlisted Marines (E1-E5) promotions are based on proficiency and conduct marks. Staff Enlisted (E6-E9) and Officers are based on fitness reports. These reports are very detailed, and are scored on every aspect of a Marine's character. His proficiency at his job, effective leadership, education points (either from a university or the Marine Corps Institute or some type of trade school), his rifle score, PFT and CFT score, MCCS score, his conduct off duty, his financial stability, his appearance, his attitude, volunteer work, etc. etc. etc.
Basically, if you have two Marines with similar records, but one is getting promoted and the other has stayed a 2LT for 10 years, it's obvious there's something fishy going on. And every Marine, from a boot Private up, has the ability to request mass all the way up to the Secretary of the Navy if he needs to. Even the die hard haters would be afraid of pulling any major crap because getting caught discriminating would mean the end of their career.
Which isn't to say everything will go smoothly, or that they won't try and do as much as they can without getting caught. In the end, we just have to wait 20 years or so for this generation to retire before it becomes completely equal.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Thanks for being so informative Dogbreath, that really puts my mind to rest.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I never understood why the US government was behaving as if their military was so bigoted that they would be unable to deal with an issue that almost all other western countries (with or without a 'real' military presence in current war zones) have managed to deal with fine.
Of course there are some homophobes - just as there are a few military personal everywhere who still can't deal with having a female presence around. But I think that this policy in general did a disservice to the vast majority of the US military population - let alone gay people who just wanted to have normal relationships and family lives in public.
Now Obama just has to close Guantanamo, and his international profile (still very positive) will be fantastic. It might not really matter what the rest of the world thinks, but it's so nice to hear people saying such positive things about the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I had to stop reading the OP because the "you know"s were driving me past the brink of sanity! I don't care if your gay, but I swear to god, if you utter the phrase "you know" one more time I'll beat the crap out of you!
That drove me crazy too.
I felt like I was playing the thunderstruck drinking game.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(For the record, the Canadian military has a real presence in two thirds of the current wars that the American military is engaged in.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shh!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (For the record, the Canadian military has a real presence in two thirds of the current wars that the American military is engaged in.)
Yeah, we need someone to bring us maple syrup. And... uh... hockey.
Okay those are the only stereotypically Canadian things I can think of.
Also I'm just kidding and don't mean any disrespect towards the Canadian soldiers out there risking their lives. And I'm sure most of them do love maple syrup and hockey.
And finally, my thoughts re: the OP... Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So long as they bring some TimBits along to the war zone, I don't think anyone will complain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I could survive on maple syrup, TimBits and hockey.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* I do like maple syrup (relatively indifferent to hockey though) Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I could survive on maple syrup, TimBits and hockey.
Your new name is The Human Diabetes
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm with you, Mucus. Maple syrup is fantastic. I'm not terribly into hockey, but then, I'm not terribly into popular American sports, either.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Hockey causes diabetes?
I need to schedule a test with my doctor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the record, I could jettison the syrup and TimBits and just live on hockey.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
TimBits? Is that something like Baco Bits?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Tim Horton's Donuts seem to be the official fast food of Canada, TimBits are akin to donut holes just way better.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: As an active duty Marine, let me relate to you all the horrifying ordeal we went though on Tuesday when the repeal went through for us;
Our Gunny walked in, and in the middle of passing word said "oh, you're now allowed to be openly gay" He paused and we all looked around expectantly for about 5 seconds, then he finished his brief. And after 15 minutes of gay jokes, nobody mentioned it again.
The horror!
My marine buddies in Prague apparently suffered a similar ordeal. Gunny walked in and made a little announcement, somebody's nipple got pinched (not a new or unsurprising method of attack for a marine), and everybody went to work.
When I polled them last year about the change, to a man, they demonstrated that they were the mature, enlightened, and forward-looking young men that we brag about back home. They convinced me a long time ago that the military was capable of growing up and moving forward, and knows how to take good advantage of the talents of all its members, no matter their race, origins, creed or sexual orientation. Even one guy who had misgivings about serving with gay soldiers (due I think mainly to immature sexual insecurity), still asserted that the change wouldn't matter, because he was taught to be a professional, and expected anyone he served with to live up to the same professional standard.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
It's actually mandatory per S4 §22-410 of the PC Culture Inquisition Required Decorum, so, good guess, but honestly why would you think that?
It's similar to S4, §27-198, of the PCCIRD, (aka: "Picard")- a provision which states that when a friend or colleague states their admiration of a black television or film actor, it is necessary to list the black television or film actors you yourself admire.
And then there's S4 §27-253, which states that while singing along to Cee Lo Green songs, it is acceptable to include the "N-word," as long as it is duly explained or otherwise established that you have a black friend, or black relative minimally a cousin by marriage or a half uncle.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Even one guy who had misgivings about serving with gay soldiers (due I think mainly to immature sexual insecurity), still asserted that the change wouldn't matter, because he was taught to be a professional, and expected anyone he served with to live up to the same professional standard.
Bingo.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For me, even if there were instances of say gay gang rape in the military, after the removal of DODT, those would be responded to (and hopefully in a more effective manner) in the same way rape involving male and women servicemen would be.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
in Oklahoma of all places... Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Does anyone know what this means to soldiers who have been discharged via DADT? or if there will be any retro-active actions taken to honor the families of fallen soldiers who until late were not considered the same as the family of a straight soldier?
as far as I know, they can reapply if still eligible. No guarantees, though — there's no restitution program in place.
There is no official policy to reinstate or recognize those formerly discharged, however, there is a lawsuit filed by three former officers to be reinstated at their previous rank.
quote: Although he yearns to return to active duty, Almy also wants to be reinstated to his full rank, which is why he filed a lawsuit with two other discharged officers. He said settlement negotiations are underway, and he awaits a resolution that will allow him to return to a different, hopefully even better, military.
With respect to formerly discharged gay service members reenlisting, according to the same source article quoted above from The Advocate:
quote: Despite career delays, jolted personal lives, and in some cases, life-threatening despair over their discharge, former members of the military expressed in interviews an eagerness to reenlist that superseded any bitterness or hardships. They said the pull of service, the uniqueness of the work and lifestyle, and the desire to help the armed forces transition into an era without the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy motivated their decision to join the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian people currently serving in the military, out or not.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Now that DADT's down, and speaking of homomentum, DOMA is next Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Now that DADT's down, and speaking of homomentum, DOMA is next
Don't hold your breath.
I think we have a better shot of SCOTUS throwing it out than we do of Congress overturning it in the next few years.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
That's true. Courts will move much more quickly.
I believe/hope that the current federal district court ruling that strikes down the section of DOMA defining marriage for federal purposes will be upheld by SCOTUS. The feds should defer to states about definitions for marriage...So at least that would be half of DOMA gone.
Then again, no one thought that DADT would blow away after only, what, 17 years? One generation?
Hopefully DOMA will fall more quickly as we gay people become accepted and respected as, well, people .
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That's recruiters for you. If you've ever had the misfortune of being young and single and in shape, you probably know what it's like to be accosted by them. I was in college during the Surge in 07, and I remember just about every day I walked on campus I'd see a pack of various service members in their dress uniforms swarming towards me with hopeful smiles on their faces, like flies towards a fresh pile of manure.
The full article say they weren't able to actually recruit anyone (none of the people who were interested were qualified), but I'm sure they'll be back.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...swarming towards me with hopeful smiles on their faces, like flies towards a fresh pile of manure.
In this analogy, you are the fresh pile of manure...I would have worded it differently myself. Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
If you have ever mentioned your wife or girlfriend then you already have detailed your sex life.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:...swarming towards me with hopeful smiles on their faces, like flies towards a fresh pile of manure.
In this analogy, you are the fresh pile of manure...I would have worded it differently myself.
Like flies towards an incontinent horse, no wait...
Like 12 year old girls towards Robert Pattinson!
I dunno, similes have never been my strong suit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Like 11 year olds toward Justin beiber.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
If you have ever mentioned your wife or girlfriend then you already have detailed your sex life.
I refer to my significant other as my partner. I know that this leads people to make assumptions, but that is entirely on them. I really prefer to refer to my partner by name, but obviously that only works if the person I'm speaking to already knows said name.
Note, I'm not saying that all gay people should do this, or even that it would help anything (In fact, it probably would've counted as telling under DADT anyway, simply because of the assumptions it leads to) but I do think it's interesting how loaded the way we convey info about our personal lives is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Don't hold your breath.
But it really is just a matter of time, honestly!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ever use pronouns, Dan?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Um... yes? It can be hard not to. Depends on the conversation. But like I said before, if I'm discussing my partner in enough depth that I need a pronoun, I would hope the person I am speaking to would know my partner's name. And it's not a gender-neutral name. So that sort of answers the question right there, doesn't it?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If you have ever mentioned your wife or girlfriend then you already have detailed your sex life
There's a good chance I've 'uncovered' my sexual orientation. That's very different from detailing my sex life.
Hobbes Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
You (assuming male): "I'm going camping with my girlfriend this weekend."
Male Coworker: "Yeah? My boyfriend hates camping so I haven't been in a while."
You: "I prefer reverse cowgirl position."
Coworker: "Ummm... okay."
Yeah, it's usually about perception of the listener.
I was sitting at the LGBTQ booth on National Day of Silence a few years back when a kind older gentleman came up to talk.
"You know, I don't have a problem with gay people; they deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else. But why do you have to shove things down other people's throats and be so in-your-face about things?"
I presented to him two situations: 1) You are chatting with a new male coworker at lunch when his phone beeps and he says, "Excuse me, it' my girlfriend, I need to take this call." 2) You are chatting with a new male coworker at lunch when his phone beeps and he says, "Excuse me, it's my boyfriend, I need to take this call."
Clearly, the gay man is all in your face about being gay, and he doesn't need to be so forceful and out there about it huh?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah and scenario B is enough to end your career under dadt?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apt punishment for being so in your face!
Man, it's so good that this thing is gone.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"I don't mind people being gay, I just... you know, mind the idea of people being gay."
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
*emphasis mine
quote:Everywhere you turned, homosexual and lesbian members of the military “came out” very publicly to celebrate what the media is heralding as a huge victory for human rights - the demise of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Why the huge media splash? Most Americans, after all, are either indifferent or opposed to gays openly serving in the military. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” served most Americans well - it kind of fit the prevailing public mood on homosexuality, which is this: *“What you do in private is your business, just don’t shove it in my face.”
from Chuck Colson at the Christian Post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Haha, as if "indifferent" to gays serving in the military is a different stance from "in favor of," and it only counts if you actively want and push for gays to serve. He'll, I don't stump for gays to join the military- I'm indifferent to the notion. I just want them to be *allowed* to.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I was reading a webpage discussing how things are so much worse in Massachusetts for allowing gay marriage. As I read, I was disgusted that people exist who honestly thought these things were bad. On the list- gay teachers put up pictures of the their spouses, increased support for gay teens and anti-bullying measures, increased PDAs in public such as handholding, gays "outing" self at restaurant and if denied service complaining. Part of me thought, surely this is satire, but looking at rest of webpage, I don't think it was.
Not linking because I don't want to send traffic there and I don't think it would be hard to find if anyone really wanted to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No no no, I'm not a bigot, because I'm only unfair to people who are different then the majority. It's not difficult, I mean, if they wanted to be treated fairly, they should just be like everyone else for god's sake.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, that on top of: "I am actually a minority *victim* of "PC" bigotry." Because I shouldn't be discriminated against for liking discrimination.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Marissa Gaeta, petty officer 2nd class of Placerville, California, is shown kissing her girlfriend Citlalic Snell, also a naval officer, of Los Angeles, in the rain at Virginia Beach. Behind them is the USS Oak Hill, an amphibious landing ship from which Gaeta has just disembarked after 80 days at sea.
By being selected as the crew member to make the traditional "first kiss" ashore, Gaeta stepped off the ship and into the history books.
It was a groundbreaking meeting of same-sex lips, the first since the ending of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in September, under which gay service personnel were not permitted to be open about their sexuality.
"It's something new, that's for sure," Gaeta told reporters after the kiss. "It's nice to be able to be myself. It's been a long time coming."
David Bauer, commanding officer of the USS Oak Hill, predicted before it happened that the kiss would largely be a non-event. "It's going to happen and the crew's going to enjoy it. We're going to move on," he said.
Both women are navy fire "controlmen" who maintain and operate weapons systems on ships - although their job title seems a little inappropriate in the circumstances. They met at training school where they shared a room.
Snell was dressed in a leather jacket, scarf and blue jeans having been on a break from her guided-missile destroyer, the USS Bainbridge.
She said it had been difficult at the start of their two-year relationship under the "don't ask, don't tell" regime. "We did have to hide it a lot in the beginning, a lot of people were not always supportive. But we can finally be honest about who we are."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Omigosh, the just and loving God shall surely chastise us with terrible natural disasters for permitting such shame!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You know Rakeesh, and I'm not saying I've never done this. But when you decide to mock a group of people rather than voice your support for a development, it only reinforces that group's belief that they are the real ones under attack, and they need to hold firm.
One's mind being changed often happens silently as they continue to experience what motivates the other side. If it's love, then change can take place, if it's hate or smug condescension, they dig in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: But when you decide to mock a group of people rather than voice your support for a development, it only reinforces that group's belief that they are the real ones under attack, and they need to hold firm.
When it comes to groups of people who are never not going to think that they are under sinister attack by agenda-wielding ungodly cabals, put at the top of the list people who preach that their Pat-Robertsonian god is going to inflict natural disasters on us or turn off the literal angel-powered asteroid deflection shield above our country for doing things like letting gays marry and serve openly in the military.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll try to put it more in a more serious way than Samprimary, though I agree with him: people who believe that God will kill, maim, or make miserable hundreds, thousands, or millions of people because a given nation becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, because it doesn't worship the correct deity in the proper way, I very much doubt they're going to change their minds about those beliefs for any amount of rhetoric, whether it's peaceful and loving or hostile and sneering.
For those that are on the fence, well I genuinely do think it's useful to encourage society in general not just to heap scorn on such stupid beliefs, but also not to let anyone forget just how hateful those kinds of beliefs are. That sort of thinking ought to be, I think, as roundly condemned as say stoning a woman to death for adultery. I don't think it's very helpful to meet that sort of thinking with loving understanding.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll try to put it more in a more serious way than Samprimary, though I agree with him: people who believe that God will kill, maim, or make miserable hundreds, thousands, or millions of people because a given nation becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, because it doesn't worship the correct deity in the proper way, I very much doubt they're going to change their minds about those beliefs for any amount of rhetoric, whether it's peaceful and loving or hostile and sneering.
The number of people opposed to SSM for this reason is vanishingly small. Most people are closer to what you describe as "fence sitters," but (as BB suggested) they are also very used to being lumped in with Fred Phelpsian-style insane bigots, and they (somewhat rightfully) feel rather attacked by mockery like you displayed here.
They're also wrong, but mocking them by acting like they are completely over-the-top hateful monsters is not the best way to deal with them, in my opinion.
Re: the actual story... it's wonderful and adorable. I misted up the first time I saw the video.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They lump themselves in with the bigots; we just point that out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While the number of straight-up far right religious-social issues people *is* small, the power they exert on American politics is just shall we say disproportionate. We see an excellent example of that now: when was the last time evangelicals, a minority even in the Republican party, didn't wield great power in deciding who will be their candidate?
As for the fence-sitters, well how do we *not* make them feel attacked? They already feel attacked. There's value to making them feel some sense of shame, too. Should that be the only tool? No.
But, it's strange how we're expected to mince around the sensibilities of fence sitters but they are not expected to accord any such courtesy. Perhaps there would also be some benefit to reminding them that they aren't the only people who are offended by the social ideas of others. So often it's couched the other way, as though the people seeking a change are attackers, rather than those standing for the status quo being seen as continuing a long standing attack on homosexuals.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very well put, Rakeesh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The number of people opposed to SSM for this reason is vanishingly small.
Are you citing specific numbers, or is this an assumption?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I could be mistaken; it has been some time since I argued here really frequently. But I think I see some people in favour of mocking and attacking those opposed to SSM on the grounds that they should be ashamed, who were opposed to mocking and attacking theists.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:As for the fence-sitters, well how do we *not* make them feel attacked? They already feel attacked. There's value to making them feel some sense of shame, too. Should that be the only tool? No.
There are fence sitters, but there are also "people making up their mind" also "people who are willing to change their mind if shown the right things the right way."
I do not base my behavior on the bar set by the other side. We can't label every opponent of SSM as a bigot or close minded. Some just haven't heard anything but objections, they don't know any openly gay people, they're ignorant. You can mock them, and they will turn into granite, at which point people will start picking up weapons. Or you can let them see that their wrong beliefs make them into angry hateful people they don't want to be, while your beliefs leave you with a sense of peace and their effect is softening.
I recognize that sometimes the real bad people play the victim card, while labeling the virtuous as the aggressors. I recognize that sometimes you need to plant your feet in the dirt and say you will not be moving. But I cannot think of a moment in my life where mockery repaired something broken in me, can you?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I could be mistaken; it has been some time since I argued here really frequently. But I think I see some people in favour of mocking and attacking those opposed to SSM on the grounds that they should be ashamed, who were opposed to mocking and attacking theists.
Maybe the idea is that we should mock/attack views that are morally wrong, but not views that are just factually mistaken or unjustified.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Are progressives supposed to be happy about the repeal of DADT? I do not even know why this issue is considered a left-wing one.
The American military - like every other military - is a fundamentally conservative organization. It even goes beyond being conservative into plainly imperial. How could any left-winger deny that? (Yes, conservatives, I know you disagree, but I'm not trying to disagree with you at the moment)
What exactly is the reasoning here? "How dare you tell me I cannot participate in a war I have spent the last 10 years criticizing and lamenting because I'm gay..." or "How dare you tell me I cannot pilot a drone to blow up an Afghani wedding because I am gay..."
I think it is a sign of the fundamental disorientation and confusion of American liberals. As if "personal choice" were the only criteria for progressive action. "I choose to serve in the military, and therefore I should have the right to."
Except personal choice is not the basic criteria for progressive thought and action; rather, we should be concerned with justice, truth and universality.
Personal choice is the moral criteria of late capitalism, to put on my Marxist hat. The desire for the repeal of DADT is conservative, not progressive.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think it's more of an issue which, due to the fact many of the conservatives in our country also identify with a religion that condemns homosexuality, more progressives support than conservatives. It's neither a liberal nor conservative issue, so to speak, it's a human rights issue. The intricacies of our current political climate make that difficult to see, though. I know many republicans (in the military, no less!) who strongly opposed DADT. I know at least one gay republican.
For that matter, I know *many* democrats who not only support(ed) the recent wars, but actively desired to serve in the military and participate therein. I also know democrats who opposed the war, yet still desired to serve in the military, because they felt it important to do so for one reason or another.
Our current parties are far too bloated to provide any coherent list of values which all their members universally subscribe to. It's difficult enough when talking about such things as economics, taxation, and foreign policy, bringing lifestyles and human rights into the picture only makes the water muddier, so to speak.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It's neither a liberal nor conservative issue, so to speak, it's a human rights issue.
I don't like that term either, if only because it is so easily pressed into service for issues like this.
I do not mean to speak of Democrats and Republicans, but progressives and conservatives. Democrats from OSC to Obama are perfectly capable of being conservative.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Would you contend that a policy forbidding human beings to openly express their sexual relationships with other human beings, and sometimes arbitrarily punishing them for their desire to enter into such relationships, is not a human rights issue?
Not that saying "it's a human rights" issue automatically means that the right in question should be granted. For example, I don't think adult humans should have the right to have sexual relations with little children, no matter how much they may desire to do so. But it is a issue that transcends politics, or political parties IMO.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
If someone is phlegmatic about the Iraq war, or if someone thinks American foreign policy is basically ok with some contingent corruption and isolated bad choices spoiling it, then yeah, I can see how DADT would be a bad thing.
But if the Iraq war is as bad as liberals have been saying for the last decade, if drone strikes are as creepy as liberals say, if American interventions against democratically elected governments are as inexcusable as many liberals say...
If all that is true, then concern over the end of DADT is roughly analogous to saying that the main problem with the KKK is that it refuses admission to black people. What, isn't that a human rights issue too? Shouldn't black people have the right to join the KKK?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, wait a second...I was fine with leaving things lie, since you effectively declared your, "I'ma rant for awhile," but 'interventions against democratically elected governments'...goodness. Which ones?
On the edge of my seat for this one, there's so many to choose from but that one's just so juicy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Foust: I think your comments demonstrate profound ignorance about the scope, nature, and mission of the U.S. military.
Also, the KKK is not a government organization.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you mean their imperial mission.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Rakeesh, I know the US military wasn't involved in any of the South American coups. As the first paragraph (vaguely, I admit) suggests, I was speaking about American foreign policy in a broad sense. I assume it is no secret that the CIA has been involved in toppling various democratically elected governments, but if you want examples, I'd be happy to provide them.
quote:Foust: I think your comments demonstrate profound ignorance about the scope, nature, and mission of the U.S. military.
To be fair, in my initial post I said I was speaking to people who already agree that the U.S. has a history of being involved in rotten wars. Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
quote:Also, the KKK is not a government organization.
I'm not talking about the Constitutional status of DADT. I'm talking about the contradiction between liberal's views on American foreign policy and their demand for more people to comfortably be a part of it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The number of people opposed to SSM for this reason is vanishingly small.
Are you citing specific numbers, or is this an assumption?
I don't have a study handy per se, no, but then again, what I was objecting to was terminology that ultimately would make this sort of debatable.
I was NOT saying that the number of people opposed to SSM on the grounds that it is immoral is vanishingly small. Last study I remember showed that they were pretty overwhelmingly against SSM. The part I was disputing is that a significant number of evangelicals think that God is punishing America because we are too tolerant of homosexuality.
If I recall the data correctly, the number of evangelical christians opposed to civil unions is dramatically lower than the number opposed to SSM, to the point that the "opposed" were only slightly over 50%. Do you think that any evangelical okay with civil unions would think that God is punishing us because he hates The Gays?
And of the 55% or 60% or whatever it was of evangelicals that do oppose civil unions as well, do you think that all of them hit this Phelpsian level of insanity? Do you think half of them do?
This is the part I don't think I could get numbers on, and it's sorta the crux of the issue. I don't know of any survey of evangelicals opposed to SSM that believe that god is punishing us for being too accepting of gays. Do you?
I do know that most other churches frequently criticize and disavow any affiliation with Phelps, though, so that's something.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ... Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ... But if the Iraq war is as bad as liberals have been saying for the last decade, if drone strikes are as creepy as liberals say ...
Technically, you're already involved as a taxpayer and as a voter that elected the government.
The decision to make drones strikes and to start/continue the Iraq war was a decision made not by the military by itself, but by the civilian government. Just sayin'
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Technically, you're already involved as a taxpayer and as a voter that elected the government.
The decision to make drones strikes and to start/continue the Iraq war was a decision made not by the military by itself, but by the civilian government. Just sayin'
I really don't understand your point. Honestly. Could you make it more clear for me?
Edit: Assume I'm stupid. What is the relation of your point to what I'm saying?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Faust, I think that Mucus's point is that we bear as much responsibility for what our soldiers do as the soldiers do themselves. We sent them there.
Your point is ridiculous. Having a military does not mean that we have to use the military for evil.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second, wait a second...I was fine with leaving things lie, since you effectively declared your, "I'ma rant for awhile," but 'interventions against democratically elected governments'...goodness. Which ones?
On the edge of my seat for this one, there's so many to choose from but that one's just so juicy.
Russia 1918 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état 1953 Iranian coup d'état Guatemala 1954 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960 Iraq 1963 Brazil 1964 Republic of Ghana 1966 Chile 1973 ??? Argentina 1976 Nicaragua 1981-1990
Profit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I didn't realize the span of this theme was 'ever'. If I had, I wouldn't have said that (nor have I ever denied-in fact I've been ashamed of-our shall we say spotty record on fostering democracy when we have a direct interest one way or another). I rather thought we were speaking of a generation or two's length of time, and if we are, that accusation becomes much less of a slam dunk and in fact gets positively uncertain.
Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Half of those examples are within my lifetime. All are within a generation or two. So what if we don't usually invade militarily? We prop up whatever government is good for business and frequently that US-sponsored government is oppressive, unjust, and brutal. For example, Saddam Hussein. I know you know about that one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
Is there to be no room for fighting for rights that may be abused? If you believe in freedom of speech, you accept the occasional necessity of defending the Nazi Party's right to march through Jewish neighbourhoods. If you believe in freedom of medicine, you accept that people will occasionally get high on marijuana and do badly on their exam the next day. And if you believe in freedom of sexuality, you accept that some gays will want to join the military, and fight for their right to do so even if you think it's a bad idea.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Yup. And all the resources and taxes from our annexed subjects flows back to us, into the heart of the Imperium, to fuel our engine of destructive oppression. We certainly don't spend overwhelming amounts of our own wealth to try and improve and stabilize other areas, because, really, what would be the point? That's not the way you get ten people to sacrifice on the altar of our Immortal God King each day.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps not, but the resources of those countries certainly do go to line the pockets of corporations. Which is quite possibly worse than lining our treasury. We spend public blood and treasure to smooth the way for private interests.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Yup. And all the resources and taxes from our annexed subjects flows back to us, into the heart of the Imperium, to fuel our engine of destructive oppression. We certainly don't spend overwhelming amounts of our own wealth to try and improve and stabilize other areas, because, really, what would be the point? That's not the way you get ten people to sacrifice on the altar of our Immortal God King each day.
We were terrible at Empire. As soon as we took the Philippines we set a date to give it back. As soon as we took Cuba, we passed a law saying we couldn't annex it. Every country we've conquered in war (Germany, South Korea, Japan) we've spent billions to revitalize and demanded nothing back but loan payments.
Does that make taking places over better? No, an invasion or conquest is still an invasion or conquest, but let's not pretend like there aren't degrees, and that those degrees don't matter.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's fine, Lyr, and I don't think I or Rakeesh are saying that those degrees don't matter.
I'm pretty sure what we are specifically responding to is the assertion that the US is an "imperialist" nation. It's not an uncommon charge from certain factions on the more far-out left wing, and it is a false one. It's worth calling out, in my opinion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I sort of agree with you, I sort of don't. I think we ARE an imperialist nation, or at least, have a brief but powerful imperialist past. I mean, come on, Manifest Destiny wasn't a benign exercise. But we also didn't invade and exploit people (we imported our exploitation and did it from home).
We have a complicated past, difficult to squeeze into the traditional European imperialist rubric. But how you label is perhaps misses the point.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm not disputing our past, except to say that I think that applying a modern rubric to historic civilizations is a good way to unfairly demonize a group in history. That is, I think there is value in recognizing that a historic culture was objectively wrong, but also in acknowledging that they may have still been better than most of the alternative ideas in their day.
Man, I said I wasn't disputing, then I argued a bunch. Sorry! I think this is tangential. Rakeesh and I were both talking about America and the American military in the modern age.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I very much agree with you, Lyrhawn, about having a brief but powerful imperialist past. We haven't even discussed the various means, many foul, by which we acquired the continental US
Anyway, my objection was based on the absurdity, in fact the pretty clear-cut falsehood, that it's strange and immoral for a liberal who has opposed much historic US foreign policy to oppose DADT, as though only some sort of imperialist monster would *want* to be involved in the military. It's nonsense. His objection doesn't withstand a moment's scrutiny if you take into account he was talking about people *now*, with the *recent* past, no less.
-----
Kmbboots, I have a hard time believing you aren't *very* aware of what specifically I was talking about, and what I wasn't. It's funny how with some people, if you're not constantly and in all discussions making specific mention of *all* of the US's many, many bad and even wicked foreign policy decisions...why, you've just gotta be taken to task for it.
In case you're wondering where this irritation comes from, it stems from your remark, "I know you know about that." Know what *you* know, or should? This discussion isn't about broader historic US foreign policy. It's about whether a modern liberal could oppose DADT, or even wish to join the military as a known homosexual, without being some sort of dreadful hypocrite.
And I'll just go ahead and point out I think it's ridiculous to suggest we intervene to support private corporate interests. That's a claim that is easily rejected, because hey-if that was our motive, we would've said eff the Iraqis, business can be great with Saddam, let's buy oil!
No. The truth is not that simple. What can be truthfully and shamefully said is that our interventions suffer from a lot of self-interested corporate meddling, which helps lead to trouble. But that's not the same thing.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Do you think the American military spreads puppy dogs and flowers wherever it goes? Apparently these are the only two options: brutality or puppy dogs.
I said it in my first post, and I'll rephrase here: if you think Abu Ghraib, the intervention in the Russian civil war and My Lai were isolated failures, contingent mistakes or the work of a few bad apples, you are not someone I am arguing with.
quote:Is there to be no room for fighting for rights that may be abused?
I'm not criticizing the ability of gays to join the military as a right that may be abused. I am claiming this is a contradiction in liberal thinking. I'm not saying "it's a bad idea." It's a contradiction. I thought you of all people, KoM, would understand this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I said it in my first post, and I'll rephrase here: if you think Abu Ghraib, the intervention in the Russian civil war and My Lai were isolated failures, contingent mistakes or the work of a few bad apples, you are not someone I am arguing with.
Yes, I can see why you wouldn't be. Makes it easier to avoid difficult questions about over-the-top generalizations, for one thing.
Your picture is neatly, for the sake of argument, incomplete. It has to be, else your case falls flat on its face. Indians shouldn't have attempted equality with Britain before protesting; women in the US shouldn't have worked so long and so hard to be a part of a system that mistreats them; minorities shouldn't...and so on and so forth.
I suppose liberals ought not partake of any institution that isn't already utopian, then. What a silly, smug outlook you're espousing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't agree with Foust's anti-DADT principle, but I think you guys are operating with a pretty narrow definition of imperialism.
A major function of the US military is to protect our national interest in dealing with entities that exploit foreign people, via the fact that foreign countries have very badly constructed economies. This happens with oil and with foreign labor. I don't think it's a stretch to call some of our policies imperialist in this regard.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I will certainly agree that much, far too much of our foreign policy is geared towards finding ways to help our own interests, and that we make those decisions either before, after, or during tending to other motives.
I disagree that qualifies as imperialism, a word used to describe the behavior of governments that just doesn't very closely align with what I think you're talking about, Destineer. Imperialism was always about more than just having a fat wallet.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote: Do you think the American military spreads puppy dogs and flowers wherever it goes?
Sometimes, yes.
There seems to be a fundamental breakdown in logic here, and this is how it goes: "The U.S. has, at different times and in different places, engaged in unethical and immoral acts. (such as toppling small democracies)" - Put aside the fact these actions were usually done by the CIA, not the military proper, then yes, the U.S. has used it's military poorly in some situations. - "Therefore, anyone who joins the military or is a member thereof must fully support those acts."
The U.S. military is also a tremendous force for peace and stability throughout the world. The amount of humanitarian aid provided, the number of conflicts ended, the number of theoretical conflicts prevented by it's presence and power is overwhelming. Likewise, one of the most common things we do is perform exercises with the militaries of other nations, and by doing so often create cohesion and unity in places formerly susceptible to distrust and hostility. These are a few operations that I have been personally involved in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisman_sabre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom_%E2%80%93_Philippines
The purpose (and outcome) of each has been to promote stability and increase quality of life in the western Pacific, and each has done so using different means: direct humanitarian aid, building military and diplomatic relations with our allies, and finally, more traditional (i.e, combat) military intervention. The U.S. military is involved in many hundreds of such exercises throughout the world, and while their motivations may not always be altruistic, it's ridiculous to castigate an enormous and intricate organization on the basis of it's absolute worst moments. There's not a single large organization that could stand up to that sort of scrutiny.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm not criticizing the ability of gays to join the military as a right that may be abused. I am claiming this is a contradiction in liberal thinking. I'm not saying "it's a bad idea." It's a contradiction. I thought you of all people, KoM, would understand this.
Nope, sorry. I don't understand the point you're making. You seem to be arguing against a strawman liberal who believes that the US shouldn't have a military at all. I have never seen anyone suggest this, and even if someone did, they might consistently believe both "The military should be smaller or nonexistent" and "this particular method of restricting the military's size is unjust". There is certainly no contradiction in believing both that the US military is sometimes used unjustly, and that some of its recruiting procedures are unjust, and wanting both of these reformed.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:You seem to be arguing against a strawman liberal who believes that the US shouldn't have a military at all.
No.
I'll make this simpler. There seems to be a substantial overlap between the groups of people who have been claiming that the Iraq war is not just bad policy, but actually evil, and the the groups of people demanding the end of DADT.
The discussion so far has consisted of several people who might be willing to concede that the Iraq war was bad policy telling me that I'm engaged in utopian thinking. Ugh. That's not the topic I'm interested in.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Then don't respond. We can still read what you say and comment on it if we choose. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Foust: you may have a better time of it if you didn't, say, simply refuse to argue with people who don't share your (IMO) unfounded and incorrect views on the military.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The part I was disputing is that a significant number of evangelicals think that God is punishing America because we are too tolerant of homosexuality.
A significant number do, yes, as at least detailed in the Pew Global Attitudes Project that analyzed people's views on homosexuality. Somewhere around a quarter of living christians believe it in some way, probably more.
This isn't a depressing statistic to me, ultimately, because views like this are rapidly on the decline, vanishing between generations and becoming overwhelmingly ridiculed and forced to change. The people who believe it? Mostly old people, and it is already a sharp reduction from the prevalence of similarly harsh and condemning attitudes on homosexuality from during the AIDS scare, in which it was pretty blatantly preached by many denominations and believed by ever so many that AIDS was a punishment by God upon this country for the wickedness of homosexuals. Many denominations preach very strongly and very clearly that God's protection for your tribe/homestead/nation is absolutely, unarguably contingent upon your avoidance of wickedness, that if you invite wickedness in, you are bringing God's wrath of disapproval upon your home. This is a very, very clearly taught matter that has only now finally begun to abate, but that doesn't affect what the older generations fiercely believe, fire-and-brimstone-and-Romans-1:32-and-Hebrews-13:4, because of how strongly they were taught these things when they were being raised to be good christians in that generation's version of being a good christian.
The SBC, America's largest protestant denomination, hardly shies away from the idea, though they've begun to. Groups like the Pentecostals don't seem to be abating from the idea at all. The ideas that our older generations were raised on haven't disappeared, nor have these older generations themselves.
quote:I do know that most other churches frequently criticize and disavow any affiliation with Phelps, though, so that's something.
Odd choice to bring up Phelps. Belief that the country will suffer for its permission of wickedness, tolerance of homosexuality, tolerance of sex outside of the bonds of Christian marriage, acceptance of "Darwinism," banning organized prayer in schools, is common. Statements by churches and by powerful religious figures that god will actively punish us for such things are also not at all constrained to a "Fred Phelpsian-style insane bigots" fringe. WBC is so small as to be statistically negligent, and other churches' disavowal of it does not come with a complete rejection of the idea that god will act on his displeasure towards a country for permitting wickedness like gay marriage.
People like Jerry Falwell and the views they have influentially preached are not insignificant fringes. Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family, New Life Church, Pentecostalism, look deep in the heart of American evangelicalism and stuff like this is hardly as fringe as one would like to believe. It's really weird, like watching Jesus Camp and going 'oh right, this is a significant and underlying thing in our country.'
We have even had little mini-lectures here by people of various denominations about this sort of thing. The 'literal angel-based meteor deflection shield' is something I would have never known about without hatrack!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'll make this simpler. There seems to be a substantial overlap between the groups of people who have been claiming that the Iraq war is not just bad policy, but actually evil, and the the groups of people demanding the end of DADT.
For the sake of argument, then, let's say the Iraq war was not just badly mistaken but at all stages throughout actually evil, in intent and execution. Quite a lot of problems with that, but still.
Your idea is still nonsense. How large is the US military, Foust? How much of it was active in Iraq, versus elsewhere? You might as well have told a black woman it was hypocritical and strange to have wanted to be able to join the LA police department after Rodney King, if she wanted to, that is.
But go on, insist that there's still a contradiction without, y'know, discussing key objections to that statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBkade,
(Meant to get back to you sooner).
I'm afraid I disagree with you that there are really very many people who are legitimately on the fence or waiting to make up their minds on this topic. I say this because the question of whether to accord homosexuals the right to marry adults of their choice isn't one that hinges on, say, a new groundbreaking study that's almost finished, or whose case hasn't been made for and against exhaustively for years in the nation. The decision is out there for people to make, one way or another, and delays come from within it seems to me. There does not exist, for example, a person in the US who has not been 'shown the right way' on this subject, not unless they're unwilling to look.
I would hesitate to label every opponent of SSM a bigot, but I don't see how close-minded doesn't apply. 'God says so' is not in fact a shield from the charge of close-mindedness, in fact it's the reverse. And you can't find a justification for opposition that doesn't rely, at its roots, on that without being transparently flawed or even dishonest. If people have heard 'only the objections', they simply aren't looking. If people have to have the case for SSM evangelized to them, chances are they're not actually on the fence so much as uncomfortable with public gays. If they have to have it proselytized to them, the chances of conversion are likely about the same as other random proselytization attempts-poor.
But, as I said before, what treating the ideas of opposition with scorn *can* do is help to change the direction of public contempt in this country. There are still plenty of racists in our country, of course, but what is the public response should someone say 'black people are lazy'? Laughter for stupidity and outrage at racism. Thus the idea has had to go underground, or become something much more subtle. People aren't comfortable expressing open racism in our society anymore, and even if someone is still a closeted racist, it's not nothing if they shut up about it in public.
As for the idea of greeting intolerance with understanding, compassion, and respect while I can understand the argument that this is a more effective way to handle these kinds of problems, I'm suspicious of it, deeply suspicious, because of the concern it shows over the status quo, the constant acknowledgment that we understand, the unspoken hint that it's OK for someone to oppose say SSM, it's just 'mistaken', there are honest non-prejudiced reasons...
There aren't. While there are plenty of opponents who aren't Fred Phelps, there isn't a one who oppose it out of a belief that gay is bad. And there isn't a person who has a reason to believe that that stands on its own without invoking God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... but what is the public response should someone say 'black people are lazy'?
You get to run in the Republican primary? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... but what is the public response should someone say 'black people are lazy'?
You get to run in the Republican primary?
OOOOOHHHHH Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rakeesh has pretty eloquently put at length what happens when you make the issue of respect for repressive, discriminatory beliefs an argument of utility in a battle for hearts and minds over the issue. At its core, if you're willing to use it as an intending tactic to change popular attitudes and support for laws, there's excruciatingly minimal benefit in trying to respectfully court older generations away from the entrenched homophobia of their era, and excruciatingly profound benefit in choking the life out of the generational impressibility of these views by treating them as inane, repressive products of fear and ignorance, little different than the core attitudes governing racism and anti-miscegenation laws.
The other unintending problem with saying something along the lines of "when you insult these people's beliefs, you get them to dig in and become harder to convert" is that they're already dug in, and they're not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society. This really isn't an issue of fence-sitters in the way that it was presented. It is an issue of the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era and the degree to which it is permitted to infect new generations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam: Thanks for responding to me! I appreciate it.
Between you and Rakeesh, you've pretty much convinced me.
I don't generally balk at showing my contempt for the "entrenched ignorance of a bygone era" (nice phrasing) that's infecting new generations in our universities (i.e. leftism), and I shouldn't balk at showing contempt for wrongheaded religious attitudes on homosexuality.
I have one question for you, Sam... what do you think of christians who believe that civil unions which grant all legal rights and privileges are okay, but still don't want to change the definition of marriage because they see marriage as a term with religious meaning? Contempt? A slightly more sympathetic disagreement?
See, I feel some sympathy, but I think that's mainly because these people ought to be able to work with my my preferred solution to the SSM issue. Which is to remove the word marriage from the legal framework entirely, and simply allow any number of consenting individuals to enter into civil unions for whatever reason they wish, with the attendant legal rights. And leave "marriage" to religious and secular institutions that care about the word.
But I think my favored solution is completely untenable by dint of the fact that most gay people and most christians won't like it. Most people, even nonchristians, have a strong irrational attachment to the word marriage, and to having the government recognize their union as such.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
46% of Republicans polled in Louisiana believe that mix raced couples should not be allowed in their churches.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Kmbboots, I have a hard time believing you aren't *very* aware of what specifically I was talking about, and what I wasn't. It's funny how with some people, if you're not constantly and in all discussions making specific mention of *all* of the US's many, many bad and even wicked foreign policy decisions...why, you've just gotta be taken to task for it.
In case you're wondering where this irritation comes from, it stems from your remark, "I know you know about that." Know what *you* know, or should? This discussion isn't about broader historic US foreign policy. It's about whether a modern liberal could oppose DADT, or even wish to join the military as a known homosexual, without being some sort of dreadful hypocrite.
And I'll just go ahead and point out I think it's ridiculous to suggest we intervene to support private corporate interests. That's a claim that is easily rejected, because hey-if that was our motive, we would've said eff the Iraqis, business can be great with Saddam, let's buy oil!
No. The truth is not that simple. What can be truthfully and shamefully said is that our interventions suffer from a lot of self-interested corporate meddling, which helps lead to trouble. But that's not the same thing.
I agreed with you that Faust's point is ridiculous. I told Faust that his point was ridiculous. In fact, that is the first thing that I did.
As for using our military to intervene for the interests of our corporations, of course we do and have since the beginning and we still are. This is not the distant past. And, in fact, we did in essence say, "eff the Iraqis" because business was great with Saddam until he started to work against our corporate interests. Just like we propped up the Shah in Iran because he did business and just like we support various South American dictator.
In case you are wondering where my irritation comes from, it stems from how, on the one hand (or in the one thread) you can decry the massacre of the Kurds (and then abandon that discussion when you have clearly gotten your facts wrong) and on the other hand (or in this thread) claim that the US military isn't used to further corporate interests. I don't know how you can hold both those thoughts at the same time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You didn't ask me, Dan, but I'll answer: I'd think, man, that's silly, and then just wouldn't care about it anymore than I'd care about the specific methods of communion at a given church, or who could or couldn't be a minister or preacher or priest in another. I might sometimes mention it as an example of close-minded or prejudiced thinking, but if they were truly willing to keep their religion to themselves and let people come to its precepts voluntarily, minus the compulsion of government, great! Different strokes for different folks.
One thing would need to happen for me to think that way, though: 'civil union' would need to be it as far as government-federal, state, and local-is concerned as far as marriage benefits and responsibilities. No one is considered wed in the eyes of the law until they obtain the civil license, period. What happens at church is of importance to believers, but is invisible to government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Y'know, kmbboots, consider me to have abandoned that discussion if you like, in spite of the fact that it's shifted to technical definitions of totalitarianism. And claim I did so because I got my facts wrong, without being able to, y'know, quote where I've done so.
But as for this discussion, you're welcome to tell me where I have denied our use of military force in service to corporate interest. You won't be able to do that. I'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject if/when you looked at my posts again, trying and failing to find where I've denied the self interested use of our military.
ETA: It's beyond irritation, now. You've said at least once I 'seize on absolute statements' or some such, being too critical when I shouldn't be because you clearly didn't mean that. But I've noticed many times things like this right here: I don't make an absolute statement, and am criticized as though I believed the opposite absolute statement!
I specifically acknowledged our financial self interest in the way our military is used, I only disputed the timing and degree. I said it happens too much, too. But what do I hear from you? That I'm denying a corporate interest or control over how our military is used.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And, in fact, we did in essence say, "eff the Iraqis" because business was great with Saddam until he started to work against our corporate interests.
Was the invasion of Kuwait particularly against US corporate interests? How? I ask in genuine ignorance; I was about 12 at the time.
Then, in 2003, there's certainly an argument that Saddam had done his level best to annoy Bush personally and that this was not a good reason for war, but again, I don't quite see how the corporate interests come into it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It takes a very odd reading of the Cold War to regard our work with Saddam-and all the other many villainies we perpetrated in that fight- in the 80s as in service to our corporate interests. Was their corporate benefit? Well, sure! Someone somewhere find me a major event in the world that people won't be able to make money from.
That's not the same thing as saying 'we did it for the money'. Just because you made money doesn't mean that's the reason you did it-it can just as likely be *part* of the reason.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh,
Here.
quote: Oh, I didn't realize the span of this theme was 'ever'. If I had, I wouldn't have said that (nor have I ever denied-in fact I've been ashamed of-our shall we say spotty record on fostering democracy when we have a direct interest one way or another). I rather thought we were speaking of a generation or two's length of time, and if we are, that accusation becomes much less of a slam dunk and in fact gets positively uncertain.
quote:
And I'll just go ahead and point out I think it's ridiculous to suggest we intervene to support private corporate interests. That's a claim that is easily rejected, because hey-if that was our motive, we would've said eff the Iraqis, business can be great with Saddam, let's buy oil!
KoM, the first Gulf War was rather strange. Saddam all but asked us whether he could invade Kuwait and we all but said that we didn't care. He was dallying with the Soviet Union and Kuwait was a more solid partner.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It takes a very odd reading of the Cold War to regard our work with Saddam-and all the other many villainies we perpetrated in that fight- in the 80s as in service to our corporate interests. Was their corporate benefit? Well, sure! Someone somewhere find me a major event in the world that people won't be able to make money from.
That's not the same thing as saying 'we did it for the money'. Just because you made money doesn't mean that's the reason you did it-it can just as likely be *part* of the reason.
The main threat of communism was to our corporate interest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BlackBkade,
(Meant to get back to you sooner).
I'm afraid I disagree with you that there are really very many people who are legitimately on the fence or waiting to make up their minds on this topic.
If we don't agree here, it pretty much undermines all other points either of us can make on the matter.
quote:I say this because the question of whether to accord homosexuals the right to marry adults of their choice isn't one that hinges on, say, a new groundbreaking study that's almost finished, or whose case hasn't been made for and against exhaustively for years in the nation. The decision is out there for people to make, one way or another, and delays come from within it seems to me. There does not exist, for example, a person in the US who has not been 'shown the right way' on this subject, not unless they're unwilling to look.
You are not affording nearly enough acceptance that people simply don't know as much about things as you seem to think they should. You also don't seem to realize that for many Christians, attempting to listen to the "other side" is akin to letting the devil make his case. It's better you completely avoid it rather than be seduced by it. And so, yes there can be tons of people who either have not really made up their mind, or would if they were carefully dealt with.
quote: I would hesitate to label every opponent of SSM a bigot, but I don't see how close-minded doesn't apply. 'God says so' is not in fact a shield from the charge of close-mindedness,
God says so is too much an oversimplification. Or perhaps it does not do justice to how complex a concept "God says so" is to many Christians. God says so can mean anything from "The Universe is this way, but God wants us to act this way." to "God created the universe this way, and so we must adhere to these laws." So for some Christians homosexuality is natural, but so is sadism or pedophilia, hence the constant comparison. The argument is one should subdue their evil nature, not embrace it. Conversely other Christians feel God has literally created a universe where one natural law is that men and women must only have sex with each other within the bounds of marriage. To float this natural law is to invite consequences ranging from God's anger at all of us as a species, to just you yourself being sent to hell.
quote: If people have to have the case for SSM evangelized to them, chances are they're not actually on the fence so much as uncomfortable with public gays. If they have to have it proselytized to them, the chances of conversion are likely about the same as other random proselytization attempts-poor.
While you are correct, people who are intentionally trying not to have their minds changed will not listen. I certainly learned this principle quite well as a missionary. But convincing people that same sex couples deserve our love, respect, and equal consideration is loads easier than converting somebody from one religion to another.
quote: But, as I said before, what treating the ideas of opposition with scorn *can* do is help to change the direction of public contempt in this country. There are still plenty of racists in our country, of course, but what is the public response should someone say 'black people are lazy'? Laughter for stupidity and outrage at racism. Thus the idea has had to go underground, or become something much more subtle. People aren't comfortable expressing open racism in our society anymore, and even if someone is still a closeted racist, it's not nothing if they shut up about it in public.
That's like saying it's not nothing that we've managed to intercept the biggest shipment of cocaine coming into the country. While technically true, it still fails to recognize that such busts account for a miniscule portion of the industry, and really does little to actually impact it. During the Civil Rights Movement, some folks like Dr. King marched in Birmingham and refused to move when attacked. Others, like some Hollywood actors, chartered buses, conscripted black people to ride with them, and road through the South in open mockery of the laws. Intentionally getting into fist fights, and other brawls. I don't really approve of the second method, though I approve of their cause.
quote:As for the idea of greeting intolerance with understanding, compassion, and respect while I can understand the argument that this is a more effective way to handle these kinds of problems, I'm suspicious of it, deeply suspicious, because of the concern it shows over the status quo, the constant acknowledgment that we understand, the unspoken hint that it's OK for someone to oppose say SSM, it's just 'mistaken', there are honest non-prejudiced reasons...
This might be where we are disconnecting. Compassion does not denote acceptance of an incorrect idea. I do not hold my peace when somebody expresses an idea like "gay people are all evil". I confront it, without giving the impression I'm trying to win the argument my opposition's expense, and if they are not willing to actually discuss, I say so, and terminate the conversation, inviting them to discuss with me when they are willing to actually have a conversation. This method has had a huge impact on myself, my family, and others. Which is in large part why I espouse it.
quote: There aren't. While there are plenty of opponents who aren't Fred Phelps, there isn't a one who oppose it out of a belief that gay is bad. And there isn't a person who has a reason to believe that that stands on its own without invoking God.
Again, God is an important concept for so many people. The vast majority of us identify as believers in God. For some obviously that means less than for others. But what is very important to understand is that for many, they can accept scorn from fellow human beings, but they can't accept scorn from God. Just as you wouldn't necessarily care if a stranger doesn't like you, but if your parents disapprove of you, it can hurt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is it not clear to you in that quote that I was rejecting the idea that we invade to *primarily* support corporate interest, as a motive in itself, and not also denying that corporate interest plays a too-large role in our foreign policy? Did I not go on to specifically admit and criticize this aspect of our foreign policy?
It's not enough, it seems, to deplore big chunks of US foreign policy: if one doesn't decry its interventions as primarily self involved, one doesn't just not recognize a problem, one is on the wrong side of it.
quote:The main threat of communism was to our corporate interest.
Oh for pity's sake nonsense. That was not the primary reason of contention in the Cold War. I mean come on, are you serious? We weren't unhappy with the idea of falling into a submissive posture to an opponent who didn't believe in freedom of speech, press, elections, in the accountability of a government to its people, to...so on and so forth.
(I just can't wait to hear about all the times we haven't as well, as though that changes the point, and be indirectly or directly accused of whitewashing.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:You are not affording nearly enough acceptance that people simply don't know as much about things as you seem to think they should. You also don't seem to realize that for many Christians, attempting to listen to the "other side" is akin to letting the devil make his case. It's better you completely avoid it rather than be seduced by it. And so, yes there can be tons of people who either have not really made up their mind, or would if they were carefully dealt with.
I certainly accept that such people exist. I reject the notion that they're legitimately on the fence: if they fear to hear a contrary argument for fear of evil getting in through the ears, they're not on the fence. They've made up their mind; SSM is from the devil. It's neither compassionate nor respectful to them as human beings, people who believe that sort of thing, to speak as though they didn't. They would be best served by being persuaded as quickly as possible that Satan doesn't enter through the ears or eyes.
quote:During the Civil Rights Movement, some folks like Dr. King marched in Birmingham and refused to move when attacked.
Would you say Dr. King treated his opponent's beliefs with respect? I wouldn't. I think he scorned them, and urged them in very personal ways by pointing out hypocrisy AND a better path to change their ways. He was nonviolent in protests, but that's not the same thing at all as respecting and being compassionate for racism.
quote:This might be where we are disconnecting. Compassion does not denote acceptance of an incorrect idea. I do not hold my peace when somebody expresses an idea like "gay people are all evil". I confront it, without giving the impression I'm trying to win the argument my opposition's expense, and if they are not willing to actually discuss, I say so, and terminate the conversation, inviting them to discuss with me when they are willing to actually have a conversation. This method has had a huge impact on myself, my family, and others. Which is in large part why I espouse it.
In person this is similar to my approach, with one difference: if a given 'they' is going to keep discussing an idea, such as gays are evil, even after I've said I would only speak of it with them should they have a real discussion...well, I won't keep my peace then. If they're going to speak up about why SSM or DADT is wrong or right, I am also going to challenge it when I hear it, and heap scorn on it while explaining why to those who really have made up their minds and won't be changing them until, in a generation or two, there is a 'revelation' that it's kosher now.
quote:Again, God is an important concept for so many people. The vast majority of us identify as believers in God. For some obviously that means less than for others. But what is very important to understand is that for many, they can accept scorn from fellow human beings, but they can't accept scorn from God. Just as you wouldn't necessarily care if a stranger doesn't like you, but if your parents disapprove of you, it can hurt.
This seems to me to be a very cogent, human explanation of how some people come to be close minded.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll try to get to your excellent points later Rakeesh. Right now it's pretty hard for me to type anything beyond the superfluous as I am sick, and work is beating me over the head with a stick.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The main threat of communism was to our corporate interest.
I really do not see how this can be the case, unless you have been using 'corporate' in its older sense of 'collective' rather than the sense of 'having to do with companies'. Are you, perhaps, arguing that a Soviet win in the Cold War would have been very bad for those Europeans who ended up in the Gulags, but that the US would have remained independent whatever happened, and thus would have been affected only by the loss of its European markets?
I also did not understand how your answer about the first Gulf War demonstrated anything about corporate interests. There was certainly a diplomatic miscommunication somewhere, but I don't see what corporations have to do with it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You didn't ask me, Dan, but I'll answer: I'd think, man, that's silly, and then just wouldn't care about it anymore than I'd care about the specific methods of communion at a given church, or who could or couldn't be a minister or preacher or priest in another. I might sometimes mention it as an example of close-minded or prejudiced thinking, but if they were truly willing to keep their religion to themselves and let people come to its precepts voluntarily, minus the compulsion of government, great! Different strokes for different folks.
One thing would need to happen for me to think that way, though: 'civil union' would need to be it as far as government-federal, state, and local-is concerned as far as marriage benefits and responsibilities. No one is considered wed in the eyes of the law until they obtain the civil license, period. What happens at church is of importance to believers, but is invisible to government.
I was curious about your opinion too, though, so thanks for replying!
I think I completely agree with everything you said here. The only reason I personally like civil unions as the endgame for gay people is that I also like that as the endgame for straight people. Also for platonic people who find it financially sensible to live together and support each other (For example: I have at least one close friend aside from my partner who I would absolutely want to be the one making decisions for me if I were in a coma, rather than most of my actual blood relatives, who I wouldn't trust to make medical decisions for my snake. I'd totally civil union the crap out of him).
Edit: I meant I'd civil union my friend, not that I'd civil union my snake. Although, if we legalize gay marriage, that is the next stop down the slippery slope.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:if a given 'they' is going to keep discussing an idea, such as gays are evil, even after I've said I would only speak of it with them should they have a real discussion...well, I won't keep my peace then. If they're going to speak up about why SSM or DADT is wrong or right, I am also going to challenge it when I hear it
In short, they are welcome to continue expressing and advertising their beliefs, and you are at liberty to act upon their subjecting you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BlackBlade -
quote:During the Civil Rights Movement, some folks like Dr. King marched in Birmingham and refused to move when attacked. Others, like some Hollywood actors, chartered buses, conscripted black people to ride with them, and road through the South in open mockery of the laws. Intentionally getting into fist fights, and other brawls. I don't really approve of the second method, though I approve of their cause.
Out of curiosity, what do you really see as the difference between the two? You don't think King was highly cognizant of the fact that Bull Connor with hoses and attack dogs made for every bit as good publicity as the Freedom Riders? Publicity was the greatest weapon the CRM had, and the Freedom Rides were no more provocative than sit-ins or King's marches through Birmingham or Selma. The buses were however highly vulnerable and in a particularly dangerous place when they were attacked.
And the Freedom Riders weren't mocking the law, they were ENFORCING it. The Supreme Court had already ruled that interstate bus facilities and buses had to be desegregated. The Freedom Riders were exercising their rights.
Dan & Rakeesh -
I agree with you two on the whole civil unions thing. It all really boils down to a ridiculous semantic debate anyway, doesn't it? Does anyone really think that if we reduce the government's role to civil unions for all, everyone won't call them marriages anyway? Regardless of where they get civil unioned? The drive in the LGBT community to have a status equal with straight people is just, but if their goal is to have RELIGION recognize their unions as right, then not only are they shouting at the wind, I don't agree with them. The state should not create special classes, and it shouldn't support one religion over another. Some gays might find it offensive that we had to change the entire definition of state-sanctioned coupling just to deny them the right to marry, but the simple fact of the matter is that government has no place enforcing religious doctrine or the concept of marriage in the first place.
Let's all get "civil union" stamped on our licenses and then call it whatever we want in the privacy of our own homes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The main threat of communism was to our corporate interest.
I really do not see how this can be the case, unless you have been using 'corporate' in its older sense of 'collective' rather than the sense of 'having to do with companies'. Are you, perhaps, arguing that a Soviet win in the Cold War would have been very bad for those Europeans who ended up in the Gulags, but that the US would have remained independent whatever happened, and thus would have been affected only by the loss of its European markets?
I also did not understand how your answer about the first Gulf War demonstrated anything about corporate interests. There was certainly a diplomatic miscommunication somewhere, but I don't see what corporations have to do with it.
I should have been more clear. I am differentiating between communism as an economic system and the Soviet Union as a military - and imperialist - power.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, you could reasonably argue that American internal politics were resolved in favour of corporate interests, but the Cold War was very much about the USSR as a military and imperialist power. Czarist Russia, given the same degree of industrialisation, would have fought the same kind of conflict.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I should have been more clear. I am differentiating between communism as an economic system and the Soviet Union as a military - and imperialist - power.
Well one of those words has a hell of a lot more to do with our engagement in the Cold War than 'our opposition was based on our corporate interest.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:You might as well have told a black woman it was hypocritical and strange to have wanted to be able to join the LA police department after Rodney King, if she wanted to, that is.
The LA police department of the early 90s? Yeah, I would have said the same thing. The LA police department now? I suspect yes, but I'm not really sure. Actually, my opinion would be the same of any police department, but felt much less strongly to the point that I wouldn't say anything.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Progress.
quote:A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.
quote: Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort".
Damn right, it doesn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think there's any question that 1. This will be appealed to SCOTUS and that 2. SCOTUS won't dodge it. It's been coming for years and they have to be prepared to make a decision by now. It's too hot-button an issue.
But whether they uphold the ruling or overturn it, they still have the option of making this a long or a slow process. For example, they could narrowly construe the ruling to apply only to California, or they could make it national. If they narrowly apply it, it means years of more litigation to get State constitutional amendments overturned on the basis of the decision.
Furthermore, I wonder what legal response anti-gay supporters will try to enact to counteract this. Will there be a serious effort to decouple marriage from state power as a means to deny marriage to gay couples? After all, there is no law that says the state has to approve marriages at all, but if they do it, they have to do it fairly. I've long supported such a move, but I wonder if the reaction to a pro-gay marriage decision might push opponents in the same direction of civil unions for all.
Next year could be interesting, assuming they don't rush it through and decide it later this year, but I highly doubt they'd move on it that fast.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Still. A step in the right direction and a small victory.
And I love that they call Prop 8 what it is.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Will there be a serious effort to decouple marriage from state power as a means to deny marriage to gay couples?
I don't see this as an actual possibility. I've heard the "get government out of the marriage business entirely" argument many times, but only from people who either already support SSM or are at least ambivalent about the idea.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Furthermore, I wonder what legal response anti-gay supporters will try to enact to counteract this.
I don't know how robust or withered the legal response is going to be. There have been some real pathetic attempted defenses of anti-gay marriage law recently.
Back when this was Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I think the team trying to protect Prop 8 fell flat on their face. Or was that somewhere else?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Furthermore, I wonder what legal response anti-gay supporters will try to enact to counteract this.
I don't know how robust or withered the legal response is going to be. There have been some real pathetic attempted defenses of anti-gay marriage law recently.
Back when this was Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I think the team trying to protect Prop 8 fell flat on their face. Or was that somewhere else?
I'll take the straight line. That was them. If I remember correctly, all of the findings of fact went against them, in large part because most "experts" on their side weren't willing to repeat their claims under oath and the few who did were laughable.
It pretty clearly established the campaign for prop 8 as based on ignorance, bigotry, and lies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'll take the straight line. That was them. If I remember correctly, all of the findings of fact went against them, in large part because most "experts" on their side weren't willing to repeat their claims under oath and the few who did were laughable.
It pretty clearly established the campaign for prop 8 as based on ignorance, bigotry, and lies.
I really need to go read up again on their attempted defense of prop 8. I just remembered it was bad, but totally forgot about how and why it was so bad. I need to get that story back, since they got rolled over with a landslide of findings by the judge which are really, really, extremely bad news for the people trying to prevent gay marriage from happening:
quote:"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."
"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."
"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."
"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
Most important: the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Will there be a serious effort to decouple marriage from state power as a means to deny marriage to gay couples?
I don't see this as an actual possibility. I've heard the "get government out of the marriage business entirely" argument many times, but only from people who either already support SSM or are at least ambivalent about the idea.
Judging by their actions, or better put, those actions which represent their interests in the legal process and in legislation, what conservative Christians want is not "government out of private lives," but rather government involved in private lives, actively advantaging and privileging them, and actively suppressing any challenge to their moral and social superiority. And they want this done while maintaining the image of being "pro-freedom," and particularly "pro-freedom of religion."
I think it was Sam who posted a rather eloquent point by Jon Stewart, something along the lines of: they want preference for their own religious beliefs to remain the baseline, outside of which should be labeled as religious intolerance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Stewart: "I have to say, as someone who is not a Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country — or maybe forty-four in a row. But that’s my point, is they’ve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I never responded to this. Allow me to do so now.
quote:Out of curiosity, what do you really see as the difference between the two? You don't think King was highly cognizant of the fact that Bull Connor with hoses and attack dogs made for every bit as good publicity as the Freedom Riders?
It's not the publicity that bothers me. There's nothing inherently unethical in getting people to notice what you are doing so they are forced to think about it. But in one instance, with King, people are peacefully exercising their right to assemble and voice their grievances. In the other, people are intentionally looking for a conflict so they can get into violent altercations that leave them bloody, bruised, and possibly dead, while also having the chance to crack some skulls.
I don't much like arguing this point, because honestly it was the people boarding the buses and beating up the freedom riders who are the real villains. The mobs who blew up WWII vets homes for being black, and moving into the neighborhood. Who looked for the best and the brightest black men and lynched them, taking their pictures with the body in open defiance of the law. Who institutionalized hate.
But for me, in America, we should protest without our fists. If I were a Syrian, I'd get a gun, and organize.
-----
Rakeesh:
quote:I certainly accept that such people exist. I reject the notion that they're legitimately on the fence: if they fear to hear a contrary argument for fear of evil getting in through the ears, they're not on the fence. They've made up their mind; SSM is from the devil. It's neither compassionate nor respectful to them as human beings, people who believe that sort of thing, to speak as though they didn't. They would be best served by being persuaded as quickly as possible that Satan doesn't enter through the ears or eyes.
Remember though, that when you change your mind on such an important point, you should not only believe it, you should seek to make the case for that idea in your community when necessary. When I told my parents I was not going to support Prop 8 or the Marriage Ammendment to the Utah constitution, they disagree with me, but they respected me for sticking to my beliefs. For many other people though, they face family members and friends who are all one sided in their opposition to same sex marriage being legitimized in the United States. While they themselves may not be gay, they are being asked to stand against that weight of belief in the other direction, on behalf of what's right. I've certainly been asked, "Why are you defending a sin, you yourself are not gay. Or are you? You're a Mormon, you should be supporting the church in this."
It's easy to hold a belief when you are surrounded by like minded individuals. To an extent, it's good to keep the company of people you believe are honorable folks who share certain core beliefs with you.
quote:Would you say Dr. King treated his opponent's beliefs with respect? I wouldn't. I think he scorned them, and urged them in very personal ways by pointing out hypocrisy AND a better path to change their ways. He was nonviolent in protests, but that's not the same thing at all as respecting and being compassionate for racism.
Perhaps I am mistaken but did Dr. King ever say anything about people in the South being idiots, or fools, or evil?
quote:In person this is similar to my approach, with one difference: if a given 'they' is going to keep discussing an idea, such as gays are evil, even after I've said I would only speak of it with them should they have a real discussion...well, I won't keep my peace then. If they're going to speak up about why SSM or DADT is wrong or right, I am also going to challenge it when I hear it, and heap scorn on it while explaining why to those who really have made up their minds and won't be changing them until, in a generation or two, there is a 'revelation' that it's kosher now.
I treat people who are very publicly voicing an opinion I think is very wrong differently, than a person who simply tells me what they think. The former is trying to convince others to join their cause, if I think their cause is morally reprehensible I have an obligation to answer them. In the latter's case I need to establish if the person is looking to have their mind changed before I engage them.
quote:This seems to me to be a very cogent, human explanation of how some people come to be close minded.
Sure. But in same token nothing opens minds like love.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But whether they uphold the ruling or overturn it, they still have the option of making this a long or a slow process. For example, they could narrowly construe the ruling to apply only to California, or they could make it national. If they narrowly apply it, it means years of more litigation to get State constitutional amendments overturned on the basis of the decision.
I don't know about that. The ruling here was pretty narrow. If it's upheld, I would think it still only applies to California, and any other state that has a very similar sequence of events.
If it's overturned, I think this gets kicked back down to the lower court to reconsider on other grounds.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Will there be a serious effort to decouple marriage from state power as a means to deny marriage to gay couples?
I don't see this as an actual possibility. I've heard the "get government out of the marriage business entirely" argument many times, but only from people who either already support SSM or are at least ambivalent about the idea.
When SCOTUS ordered schools to desegregate in Brown, Virginia shut down their entire state school system for an entire year rather than integrate.
People have an amazing ability to resist change.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But whether they uphold the ruling or overturn it, they still have the option of making this a long or a slow process. For example, they could narrowly construe the ruling to apply only to California, or they could make it national. If they narrowly apply it, it means years of more litigation to get State constitutional amendments overturned on the basis of the decision.
I don't know about that. The ruling here was pretty narrow. If it's upheld, I would think it still only applies to California, and any other state that has a very similar sequence of events.
If it's overturned, I think this gets kicked back down to the lower court to reconsider on other grounds.
The Court can order a more wide-ranging decree. But it hardly matters. If they say that it's a constitutional right, then it's really just a matter of gay couples in every state that outlaws gay marriage filing a suit and citing the court case. It's more annoying, but it'll still happen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackblade -
quote:It's not the publicity that bothers me. There's nothing inherently unethical in getting people to notice what you are doing so they are forced to think about it. But in one instance, with King, people are peacefully exercising their right to assemble and voice their grievances. In the other, people are intentionally looking for a conflict so they can get into violent altercations that leave them bloody, bruised, and possibly dead, while also having the chance to crack some skulls.
I don't much like arguing this point, because honestly it was the people boarding the buses and beating up the freedom riders who are the real villains. The mobs who blew up WWII vets homes for being black, and moving into the neighborhood. Who looked for the best and the brightest black men and lynched them, taking their pictures with the body in open defiance of the law. Who institutionalized hate.
Well, first of all, King was looking for a fight. If you think he picked Birmingham because it was close to home, and not because everyone for miles around knew Bull Connor's reputation, you're nuts. He knew it would only be a matter of time before Connor snapped. It was part of why he went to Selma too, because Jim Clark also had a bad rep. It was a lesson he learned from Albany, where the local sheriff, Laurie Pritchett, arrested people in huge numbers that filled jails for miles around, but rarely ever committed heinous acts of violence. By doing so, he killed all their momentum and Albany fell apart. King knew he needed a Bad Guy, and he needed cannon fodder. The whole point of Non-Violent Direct Action is about provoking a response. He talked about it in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and he was unapologetic about it.
The Freedom Riders, on the other hand, did NOT start off that way. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated bus facilities had to be integrated, and that interstate buses could not be segregated. They rode South to exercise their rights. The first two busloads never imagined they would suffer the violence they did. They knew it might be problematic, but the firebombing of the bus in Anniston, and the mob that beat the Riders in Montgomery, that was something way beyond what they thought would happen. When SNCC took over the ride after that, they did it not to provoke a confrontation, but to prove that they wouldn't be cowed by violence. They begged state and federal officials for protection so there wouldn't be violence, but were denied, and in true non-violent fashion they allowed themselves to be beaten when the mobs arrived.
And if you don't mind my tackling a little bit of your exchange with Rakeesh...
quote:Perhaps I am mistaken but did Dr. King ever say anything about people in the South being idiots, or fools, or evil?
I don't know if he ever said it outright, but he often called the Jim Crow system evil, and portrayed men like Bull Connor and Gov. Wallace as evil even as he preached to love thy enemy. He very much painted the struggle as one of good against evil, and I don't think it would be incorrect to say that he referred to at least some people of the South as either evil or complicit with evil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: King was looking for a fight.
Yup. He also did very much so call it evil, as well as a 'lie which cannot live' and that the institutions of racism, like the lingering homoisms of today, survive by not being challenged due to the cowardice of the fairweather.
Also, to reiterate, and I'm really only doing this as part of what I assume to be a neutral analysis of what's working, not as an advocate of any such approach: when you make this an issue of the utility of differing techniques, then challenging and demeaning the anti-homo as readily as one should challenge and demean racism wins, and abstaining from that challenging and demeaning in order to 'reach out' to the 'fence sitters' loses. The reason, as I elaborated upon, is simple: when you're trying to use either as an intending tactic to change popular attitudes, you get an extraordinarily minimal benefit from trying to respectfully court the "defense of marriage" crowd. They are not fence-sitters. They will not be swayed in large numbers.
They're not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society, where if instead you demean their discrimination and bigotry, it erodes conspicuously. By treating it as the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era (which I will submit and argue that it really is) and stigmatizing discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals (again, discriminatory attitudes which the Defense of Marriage movement is ultimately about), you cut off the intergenerational transmissibility of those attitudes.
As I read today on the headline reddit: everybody (who isn't massively committed to deluding themselves otherwise, at least) knows that the entire gay marriage "issue" is already settled. You look at the demographics, nobody under the age of 35 is still convinced that the eeevil homosexuals will subvert democracy and ruin marriage and cause a population plunge or whatever other imbecile reasoning is being used for the anti-homo front-group cause of "defending marriage."
And that all this issue is anymore is that it would be nice if we could avoid making the current generation suffer while we wait for the oldsters to die off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I really appreciate your taking the time to enlighten me on a subject where you have a much better grasp of the history than I.
quote:Well, first of all, King was looking for a fight. If you think he picked Birmingham because it was close to home, and not because everyone for miles around knew Bull Connor's reputation, you're nuts. He knew it would only be a matter of time before Connor snapped. It was part of why he went to Selma too, because Jim Clark also had a bad rep.
When you say looking for a fight, do you mean he actually was hoping he'd invoke a violent response and had prepared his followers to respond in kind?
Walking into the lion's den is not the same thing as wearing Crip blue in Blood territory.
quote:The Freedom Riders, on the other hand, did NOT start off that way. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated bus facilities had to be integrated, and that interstate buses could not be segregated. They rode South to exercise their rights. The first two busloads never imagined they would suffer the violence they did. They knew it might be problematic, but the firebombing of the bus in Anniston, and the mob that beat the Riders in Montgomery, that was something way beyond what they thought would happen. When SNCC took over the ride after that, they did it not to provoke a confrontation, but to prove that they wouldn't be cowed by violence. They begged state and federal officials for protection so there wouldn't be violence, but were denied, and in true non-violent fashion they allowed themselves to be beaten when the mobs arrived.
I'll have to look more into it then. From what I'd read about it, I was under the impression a lot of the buses had idealistic white college boys and celebrities riding it because they were expecting trouble.
quote:I don't know if he ever said it outright, but he often called the Jim Crow system evil, and portrayed men like Bull Connor and Gov. Wallace as evil even as he preached to love thy enemy. He very much painted the struggle as one of good against evil, and I don't think it would be incorrect to say that he referred to at least some people of the South as either evil or complicit with evil.
Assuming accuracy (and isn't that always the problem? ), calling a system evil is fine, saying what a person is doing is evil is fine, portraying the conflict as good vs evil is fine, saying that an individual and what they are doing is evil in effect is fine.
Saying all people who support an idea are evil is almost always not fine.
[ February 07, 2012, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:When SCOTUS ordered schools to desegregate in Brown, Virginia shut down their entire state school system for an entire year rather than integrate.
Part of the state shut down schools for as much as 5 years. And the state gave grants to private schools, hence designing the prototype for white flight to private schools throughout the south. This in turn is the basis for much of the current attack against public education: vouchers, charter schools, etc. in an attempt to divert funding from the perceived evil of public schools to the preferred private schools that they have more control over.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also, see if you can identify the speaker before you see his name at the bottom of the quote.
"I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
-Mitt Romney (Back in 1994 while running against Bobby Kennedy)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, BB, in many ways I would say that walking into the lion's den is exactly the same as wearing Blood colors in Crip territory...if one is doing the latter to make a statement aside from bravado, that is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackblade -
quote:When you say looking for a fight, do you mean he actually was hoping he'd invoke a violent response and had prepared his followers to respond in kind?
Walking into the lion's den is not the same thing as wearing Crip blue in Blood territory.
The first, yes, he was looking to provoke a violent response. The entire point of the non-violent workshops that demonstrators went to before things like sit-ins, Freedom Rides, Freedom Summer, marches, etc. was that they all expected (and in many cases wanted) there to be violence and they had to instruct the protesters in how to react to the violence non-violently. So they taught them how to ignore it without wanting to strike back, and how to curl into a ball and protect your head, those sorts of things.
King was heavily criticizes in Birmingham when halfway through the movement there, things were starting to peter out and they finally set upon the idea of recruiting local school kids. So they got thousands of high schoolers and junior high kids (some as young as ten) and sent them right into Bull Connor's hoses. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they'd be warned it was dangerous that there'd be violence.
And it was exactly the kind of response that King both needed and wanted to incite, because without it, the press goes home, and you can't get to the rest of the country. It's why later in the movement, around 1963 or so, groups like SNCC made the painful decision to start bringing more whites into the movement, because when the white college kids came South for the summer, they KNEW local Mississippians would kill a couple of them, and they knew it was the only way to get national attention because no one cared when a black guy was lynched, but kill a white guy and it's news. And that's exactly what happened. Literally on the first day.
The Movement had no problem with provoking violence, and with using people as cannon fodder, and I don't say that as a criticism, just a statement of fact. In many ways it was brilliant, and required a hell of a lot of bravery to undertake.
quote:I'll have to look more into it then. From what I'd read about it, I was under the impression a lot of the buses had idealistic white college boys and celebrities riding it because they were expecting trouble.
If you'd like a quick, rather interesting primer, I'd suggest Ain't Scared of Your Jails. It's a 60 minute segment from the very highly regarded Eyes on the Prize series. Discusses the early sit-in movement and the Freedom Rides. You also might want to look at the Freedom Riders PBS documentary. I can also find it on Youtube, and it's also a great watch. This might introduce you to some civil rights heroes that never really made it into the mainstream narrative, like Dianne Nash.
The celebrities and white kids thing kept the Rides going all throughout 1961. The FIRST Riders were from CORE, and they weren't planning to get their asses kicked. The second set that came through were from SNCC, and they knew they might, but felt they had to force the issue. I'm not 100% sure about everyone who followed, but the first two groups are by far the most significant.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just popping in to say I love the new thread title. And that I'm sad Heath Ledger is dead.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So King went looking for a fight.
What should he have done instead?
He did what he thought best to end a system that was destroying lives. He did it in a way that was non-violent on his part, even if he expected and feared violence on another.
They had seminars on what to do in case of violence. That does not mean they wanted, or even expected violence. It just means they did not want their followers to respond violently.
He went to places where violence was likely? Those were also the places where violence was already occurring even unprovoked by marchers, and where peaceful responses were only guaranteed by the fear of those who face the violence. Lynchings, beatings, and violence did not begin in Birmingham with Kings marches. Kings marches just brought them to the media's attention.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I read a post about what the civil rights movement did and mlk jr and I can't find the link but it was interested. It talked about the atmosphere at the time, that you keep your head down, take the abuse and hope against hope that the white guys don't decide to kill you. Then the civil rights movement came and said, they are killing us and we are ducking down. Let's instead stand up, take our blows and make it public. Stop fearing the beating or violence and face it and by facing, run a chance at ending it. The essay did a better job at writing than me and was written by a black man who lived through the time. But it wa interesting- that blacks lived with violence all the time, but by making it public and shedding light on what could happen, it helped end it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd caution against describing the entire Civil Rights Movement as being that dedicated to NVDA. There were plenty of Movement members who had no problem with answering violence with violence in private spaces. The private vs. public space argument, and when to curl into a ball and when to unload a shotgun into someone was one of the major points of contention between Malcolm X and MLK, for example.
I'd also point out that the vast majority of civil rights work wasn't public. A lot of it was small town or rural activism, or for that matter, was big urban groups, but most of them didn't get the publicity that King got. King was invited to Montgomery by Rev. Shuttlesworth, who had been doing a lot of the same things as King for almost a decade but had precious few victories to show for it. King brought cameras with him wherever he went. Some of the local community organizing that never saw the light of day ended up having the most powerful long term impact in many places. But it was no less violent.
But yeah, in general I guess, the stuff that did make it on TV certainly point out publicity angle oft the self-empowerment involved with that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:SEATTLE — Washington was poised Wednesday to become the seventh state to allow same-sex couples to marry after the State House gave final passage to such a bill. Gov. Christine Gregoire promised to sign it.
The governor is expected to do just that as soon as next week, but it is not likely to take immediate effect. Under state law, if opponents gather 120,000 signatures, the measure will be put to a public referendum before it can be enacted.
The Washington vote came just a day after a court ruling in California that struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and it precedes several other votes expected across the country that could keep the issue in the spotlight throughout this election year. Some will take place in legislative chambers, including in Maryland and New Hampshire, and some at the ballot box, including in Minnesota, North Carolina and, very likely, a referendum here in Washington on the bill the Legislature just passed by a vote of 55 to 43.
New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, D.C., soon to be Washington, getting back California, keep it rolling, gents
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll have you know that since the United States is a she, all the individual states must also be girls too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jersey looks good to give it the go ahead in the coming weeks, and while there was no indication on whether or not Christie will veto, I think he will. He's a wild card, but if he wants to run for the White House in 2016, he has to veto, or he'll be tarred with the same liberal taint that Romney is getting hammered with now. On the other hand, Christie has really cultivated his cult of maverickness, so he might just let it go and call for a referendum. He's hard to read.
Either way, the momentum continues.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Christie promised to veto it. He called on the legislature to punt the issue to the general electorate in a referendum and said he would accept the results. But the legislature isn't biting.
Unfortunately, they don't have enough votes in the legislature to override his veto (at the moment--in NJ there is a strangely long period of time given the legislature to override a gubernatorial veto. They have clear up until January 2014 to override. Though I doubt that will matter.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Apparently not only are the courts not allowed to do it without being held to overthrow the will of the people. The lawfully elected legislature can't do it either. It is so hugely important that the people we pick to decide damn near everything just can't be trusted.
What a chickens#*t. Though on the bright side, I suppose politically motivated delaying actions like this are going to be more and more common, rather than flat-out refusals.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This will end up being a liability. In 20 years, he'll be the guy that didn't have the balls to do the right thing. People will remember that.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I'm hoping for more like 10 years.
I have several pro-gay-marriage argumentative essays being written right now by 8th graders. (Kids pick their own topics.)
I am very hopeful for our future.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The writing is on the wall. The population is headed in that direction. It WILL happen eventually, just like marijuana will probably be legalized in the next 20 years.
The next generation is decidedly more liberal on a range of issues that simply don't see the stigma in this activities that their parents do.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Yes, the writing is on the wall, all wrapped together nicely here by Pew Research.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks for that. It's very concisely put together.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its funny as I keep seeing the right wing crackpots insisting its the opposite, that people become more conservative as they age.
On the other hand their complete contempt for the nations youth and their support of destructive intergenerational policies that screw over the next generation possibly shows their real thoughts on the matter and their fear. Scorched earth and all that.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I wish this equality journey followed the adage "two steps forward, one step back," but sometimes it feels more like "one step forward, ten steps back."
Let's hope the best for Maryland, but again don't hold our breath. It is almost certain there will be referendums in both Washington state and Maryland before either law will go into effect. Sadly, at this point, I still think any state will reject gay marriage if put to a popular vote, due to both the Bradley Effect and the fact that the older generations are the most faithful voters.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Blayne, I just realized that you share the same name as Mayor Bradley. Any chance you are ever planning a run for mayor?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its funny as I keep seeing the right wing crackpots insisting its the opposite, that people become more conservative as they age.
They are conflating cross-sectional polls with longitudinal studies. Common error exhibited by intro stats students and crackpot politicians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This will end up being a liability. In 20 years, he'll be the guy that didn't have the balls to do the right thing. People will remember that.
Well, on the positive side, there's ...
no, it's still all gov. Christie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So yeah!
quote: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon, Chris Colfer, Matthew Morrison, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, John C. Reilly, and Rory O’Malley star in 8 — a stage adaptation of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that ultimately overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The play, penned by Dustin Lance Black (Milk) using court transcripts and first-hand interviews, was directed by Rob Reiner for a one-night-only benefit in support of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
Clicks on over... "gee... I wonder if this Rob Reiner production will be teaming with self-satisfaction..."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is a level beyond self-satisfaction, especially if you can cram that much talent into those court seats.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Trust me, I couldn't get through it. I'm just boggling that this thing is a thing that exists.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Give a guy an Oscar for best screenplay and suddenly he's a playwright.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, at least, a bad playwright. I was thinking maybe something like "Conspiracy" or "A few good men." this was like... Well it wasnt anything to *be like* anything else.
Honestly, why does Hollywood need to be some lame-assed, always behind the curve, never ahead of the pack, self congratulatory cluster**** all the time? Its pathetic. My sister is gay and a playwright, and anyone she studied with could have done better.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, at least, a bad playwright. I was thinking maybe something like "Conspiracy" or "A few good men." this was like... Well it wasnt anything to *be like* anything else.
Honestly, why does Hollywood need to be some lame-assed, always behind the curve, never ahead of the pack, self congratulatory cluster**** all the time? Its pathetic. My sister is gay and a playwright, and anyone she studied with could have done better.
Dude what are you talking about? They're always ahead of the curve! The worst thing you could say is that those paragons in Hollywood are maybe a little... out of touch.
But you know what? That's probably a good thing!
They talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered... and they talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular...
I mean, they gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters!
They should be proud to be out of touch!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, I'm starting to get that you guys don't get what this is. Here's a summary.
quote: Basically, it is an adaptation of the court transcripts from the trial in California that overturned the ban on marriage equality there. It was a very high profile trial where anti-gay bigots went to court and showed what terrible people they were without making any persuasive argument on why gays should be discriminated against. It was recorded but the courts have barred the release of the tapes so at the time a group reenacted the trial every day. Like every word and every minute, it was pretty excruciating to watch but there were many remarkable and horrifying and moments like this:
quote:Dr. William Tam, a defendant-intervener and staunch proponent of Prop 8, wanted to be excused from the federal same-sex marriage trial now in progress. It seems he feared for his and his family's life. We can see why. Our sister site LAist has a disturbing letter Tam sent out on behalf of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Yesterday, during the redirect examination of Yale Professor George Chauncey (an expert on gay discrimination) by SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, the video taped deposition (from December 1st, 2009) of Tam was shown.
Here are some (horrifying) selections: Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”
Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)
“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition and full text of email below)
“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)
“Question: And how did that come to be? How did it come to be that you were part of that debate?
“Answer: I was told by Protect Marriage to take part in that debate.
“Question: What do you remember saying on that topic of children and Prop 8?"
“Answer: Oh, I was saying that if same -sex marriage is legalized, then every child can grow up thinking whether he would marry John or Jane when they grow up.” (Tam discussing his arguments during a Pro-Prop 8 debate, page 73 of deposition)
Also introduced was a pro-Proposition 8 letter from Tam:
Dear Friends: This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to "legalize prostitution". This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen......
1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hand.
2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children's grandchildren?
3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave --- how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won't be picked as the next target.
If your church is sued, don't expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless.
In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We'd have great power if we pool our resources together. Let's win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction.
Thanks for your efforts, Bill Tam Traditional Family Coalition
This and many other similar moments actually happened in federal court and it was the best defense they could come up with to end marriage equality.
The dialogue in 8 is pretty much the transcripts of the case itself. From the court. Pretty faithfully.
And yes, Kevin Bacon is playing a real person who really came before the court in this case and said, verbatim, most of these things.
Get it now?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's some more glory from those transcripts:
quote:B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that? T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened. B: Who told you that? T: I found it on the Internet. I did not write this that polygamy was legalized in 2005. B: You put it out there to convince people to vote for Prop. 8. Did you ever look up the law? T: Yes, there was different documents that shows that’s true. B: So after Netherlands legalized same sex marriage, legalized polygamy and incest. T: I’m not sure about incest. That may have been legal before same sex marriage passed. B: If that’s the case, then it has nothing to do with same sex marriage. T: Yes, but it shows that if countries are loose with sex it leads to this…
that scene with John C. Reilly actually happened.
quote:quote: BY MR. BOIES: Q. Let me try to make the question as simple as I can. Have any of the scholars that you have said you relied on said in words or in substance, okay, this permitting same-sex marriage will cause a reduction in heterosexual marriage? That's "yes," "no," or "I don't know."
A. I know the answer. I cannot answer you accurately if the only words I'm allowed to choose from is "yes" or "no." I can give you my answer very briefly in one sentence.
THE COURT: If you know the answer, why don't you share it with us?
THE WITNESS: I would be happy to, but he is only permitting me to give "yes" and "no," and I cannot do that and be accurate.
THE COURT: He is giving you three choices, "yes," "no," "I don't know."
THE WITNESS: But I do know. I do know the answer.
THE COURT: Then is it "yes" or is it "no"?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can answer the question, but I cannot give an accurate answer if the only two choices I have are "yes" and "no." I -- if you give me a sentence, I can answer it. One sentence is all I'm asking for.
THE COURT: All right. Let's take a sentence. One sentence.
A. Can you ask me the question again, please.
BY MR. BOIES: Q. Yes, yes. Have any of the scholars who you say you relied on asserted, written, that they believe that permitting same-sex marriage will result in a reduction in the heterosexual marriage rate?
A. My answer is that I believe that some of the scholars I have cited have asserted that permitting same-sex marriage would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage, one of the answer -- one of the manifestations of which would be a lower marriage rate among heterosexuals. But I do not have sure knowledge that in the exact form of words you are asking me for they have made the direct assertion that permitting same-sex marriage would directly lower the marriage rate among heterosexuals.
BY MR. BOIES: Q. Mr. Blankenthorn?
A. Horn.
Q. Mr. Blankenhorn.
A. That wasn't so long.
Q. Questions and answers.
THE COURT: If I were to take that as an "I don't know" would that be fair?
quote: Q: My question was whether you had conducted any study in connection with your expert work or otherwise, of the effects of permitting same-sex marriage in the countries where same-sex marriage was permitted? That begins with a yes or no answer.
A: I don't think I'm able to answer that question yes or no, if those are my only two choices.
Q: Well, the question is whether you have attempted to study the effects of same-sex marriage in the jurisdictions where they have been permitted. You have either attempted to do that or not attempted to do that. It may very well have been that you attempted to do something entirely different or even related to it. But I'm not asking you about that. Do you understand?
A: May I tell you what I did do?
Q: I would like you to answer my question, sir. Now, do you understand what my question is?
A: No, sir, because --
Q: If you don't understand my question, anytime you don't understand my question, please let me know.
A: I'm letting you know now.
Q: Okay. Let me try to be as clear as I can. You are aware that there are some jurisdictions that have permitted same-sex marriage?
A: I am so aware.
Q: Okay. Now, have you studied any of those jurisdictions to try to determine what the effect of permitting same-sex marriage in those jurisdictions has been, subsequent to the time that same-sex marriage was adopted?
A: The answer to your question is: Yes.
Q: Okay.
A: If by --
Q: As long as you answer yes, then I can begin to ask more questions.
A: I'm just afraid that you won't accept my definition of "study." And I don't want to try to say something that is -- is -- that it doesn't meet your definition of a study.
quote: Q: Sir, I have got to ask you, I mean, this is going to move along a lot faster if you at least begin with a "yes," "no," or "I don't know."
A: I cannot do that on this, because the -- there are different domestic partnerships. I have to be able to say what kind of domestic partnerships we are talking about.
THE COURT: Mr. Blankenhorn, counsel is entitled to an answer to his question.
THE WITNESS: May I ask a --
THE COURT: That's how this process works. There is a question and then there's an answer. The answer has to respond to the question.
THE WITNESS: Does he mean domestic partnerships that are open to opposite sex couples or not?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: I definitely get the absurdity of the things being said. But I also get that this thing is mind numbingly boring, and packed with actors who have a egos and legacies to stoke.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not just boring, but hammy too. And 1.5 hours. There are worse ways to stoke egos and legacies, though (assuming we're just going to go ahead and generously infer that motive on their part for some reason). Besides, you don't need to watch the whole thing when you can watch from here for about ten minutes.
Posted by coppertoe (Member # 12791) on :
Anyone who uses the term "homophobia" seriously is someone to ignore. There is no such thing. It's an emotionally based ad hominem attack. The term is used to make anyone who does not agree 100% with the homosexual agenda seem like a psychiatric case. (Remember that in the 80s, homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder until the homosexual lobbyists put pressure on the folks behind the DSM to remove it. They've got to wipe out that stigma by imposing a psychiatric diagnosis on anyone who says anything that is not positive about homosexuality.) Same goes for folks who label anyone who finds homosexuality in anyway not positive a bigot--such people are the ones with intolerance problems. No?
As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, erm... What's wrong with it? I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter.
As for one study that proves this or that, if that's all you've got to back your belief, you're in big trouble. Ask anyone trained in designing studies. (And I'd be shocked if Socialist Canada came forward with a study saying anything that was politically incorrect. It's just not done. This doesn't mean that the PC studies show the truth. No, they show what is politically correct. It's PC to say outing homosexuals in the military in Canada was seamless. That's all the study shows. Take a university course in designing scientific studies and you'll see.)
Just sayin'...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by coppertoe: ... I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter. ...
Somehow, I think I can guess what your displayed sexuality is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, erm... What's wrong with it? I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter.
Under DADT, you would not be kicked out of the army for mentioning your opposite-sex girlfriend, whether or not anyone wanted to know your sexuality. And yet someone else would be kicked out the army for mentioning his same-sex boyfriend. That's part of what's wrong with it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
coppertoe, I think you may mean the 70s. Here's a thread we had all about it. I'll also quote myself from that thread:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The 1973/74 decision took place within the context of two wider cultural shifts that may make what happened somewhat clearer.
The first was a redefintition of the purpose of sex across the cultural board. The introduction of effective, reliable contraception and the century or so of efforts by contraception advocates had brought about a sharp change in the public perception of the purpose of sex. As the physical reality of sex leading to reproduction had been largely obviated, the idea that sex was primarily about reproduction was also falling by the wayside. By the 70s, even the Catholic Church had altered it's millenia-old view of sex by raising pleasure from a secondary role to procreation to of equal importance. Though thwarted by papal intervention, a commission called in 1966 even said that there was no reason in doctrine or practice for the Church to be against birth control. Outside the sexual arch-conservatism of the Catholic Church, the idea that sex solely for pleasure was ok and even healthy became widely accepted.
More specifically, the 50s and 60s saw a widespread attack on the two dominant schools of psychology, Pschyoanalytic (the traditioanl couch jockeys - pretty much like Freudian) and Behavioral (what of the rewards and punishments, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and such). Experimental analysis of the predictions of these two theories often found them wanting. In the field of psychopathology, new therapies were being developed and applied with remarkable sucess. Albert Ellis and others developed treatments based on their patients cognitions, fueling the fledgling Cognitive school of psychology. Advances is the biological understanding of the brain led to the development of a wide array of pharmocological treatments.
As these two schools of psychology weakened, so did their way of approaching and defining psychopathology. Several people touched on the idea of homosexuality as a deviation. That what the inital definition of what was a mental illness relied on: deviations. A person was sick when they deviated from most people in society, from what society expected of them, and most importantly, from what the theory the therapist adhered to said was normal.
There was a growing dissatisfaction with this theoretical orientation, both from people who believed the the theories involved were highly flawed and from people who were noticing the problems with labeling people as "ill" and that some of the people so labeled didn't seem to be having any real problems.
While there were isolated extremists such as Thomas Szasz before this, these issues really came to a head when the gay activists used sophisticated (and some not so sophisticated) political protests to force confrontations at APA meetings during 1972 and 73. Out of these confrontations, there developed a dialogue between the APA and these activists and within the APA as homosexual members came forward (although, as the NPR piece points out usually in some sort of disguise) to discuss why, actually, homosexuality should be considered a disorder.
First in comittee and then, in 1974, by the whole APA membership, the determination was made that there didn't exist sufficient evidence to say that gay people should actually be considered intrinsically sick. Due in large part to the agitation and forcing of the issue, the APA membership moved towards a characterization of psychopathology that now seems inevitible. Rather than basing their judgements of what was sick and what was healthy on the predictionsof theories, they analyzed people's functioning and drafted condtions by which it could be considered impaired.
The rest of the 70s was characterized by a re-evaluation of the field of psychotherapy under this different standard of pathology. This can be seen clearly reflected in the change from the DSM-II to the DSM-III in 1980.
---
The actual history and progression of this is much messier and more prone to politcs than I'm making out. Check out the NPR piece or some of the other reasoures. There's great stories involved here and the decisions and divisions that sprang out of this are still active today, some in places you wouldn't expect.
Also, it's important to note that, while it would be silly to say that there isn't an air of endorsement of homosexuality to this decision (which is borne out by later APA actions), the APA doesn't consider the DSM as a standard for judging what's right and what's wrong. Removing it as a classification doesn't mean that they were saying that it was right, just that it didn't fit the qualifications for being considered a mental illness. There's actually at least one interesting interview with an APA member who agreed with this decision but still considered homosexuality wrong. I'll see if I can find a on-line version of it.
If you're going to set out to show that anti-gay people are not ignorant bigots, I think you might do better to have a handle on the basic facts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Facts are PC!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by coppertoe: Anyone who uses the term "homophobia" seriously is someone to ignore. There is no such thing. It's an emotionally based ad hominem attack. The term is used to make anyone who does not agree 100% with the homosexual agenda seem like a psychiatric case.
Ignoring completely the notion that homophobia literally does not exist, as opposed to just being too psychologically/diagnostically charged a word applied to too broad a category of people, you need to describe what — in your mind — someone has to believe in order to "agree 100% with the homosexual agenda." What is the homosexual agenda?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
See, Coppertoe is not Homophobic. He is a hetero-supremisist. Heterosexuality is supreme. homosexuality is not.
As far as anyone using the term "Homophobic" being automatically unworthy of listening too, the same can be said for anyone using the term "Homosexual Agenda". That is a term created by conservatives to stigmatize the desire for homosexuals to be accepted in our society. The only people I know who ever have listed what is on the homosexual agenda have been heterosexual conservatives listing their fears of what it might be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm fairly sure the homosexual agenda includes, but isn't limited to, a sort of gay reverse Halloween: 364.25 days out of the year, wandering bands of homosexuals rove the landscape-especially suburbia-and if they ring your doorbell, they get to make a lengthy sales pitch to your entire family, enticing them to be gay.
That's just the public face of it, though. Being gay (and therefore obviously liberal), there's an insidious Jesus-hating agenda too: as more and more Americans go gay-and it's skyrocketing, of course-individually, gays become more powerful and appealing. With every awards show gay kiss, every gay Hollywood movie, an individual gay may, on sight, turn you gay. Or your god-fearin' kids, of course.
The really powerful gays, the Alpha Gays if you will, wield this power even without firsthand sensory contact. Scientists from various creationist universities don't fully understand this phenomenon yet, whether it's gay pheremones or hypnotic fashion sense or gay mind control or good old fashioned Gay Satan, but it's been observed in the world. It exists.
There: the homosexual agenda. Now I don't want to hear any of you whining later when you're gay that you weren't warned.
(My contribution to my own enjoyment and heaping scorn and ridicule on coppertoe's noxious, foolish ideology as expressed. Two valuable public services!)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
You won't have much time, though. As we have been warned, legitimizing gay marriage pretty much causes civilization to collapse and we would be setting the doomsday ticker.
BUT SERIOUSLY hi coppertoe, I do really want an answer as to what the gay agenda is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A better question, a two-part question if we must at least give the appearance of taking such a post seriously: what is the 'homosexual agenda', and equally important, how did you come to know it?
It's striking how abruptly arguments against legalizing SSM fall flat on their faces when you merely insist that, no, it's not a given that it's bad for whatever reason-you have to demonstrate why it's bad without the starting assumption that it is.
And no, I don't want to hear about what it says in your given holy books anymore than I want to hear about why it's awful I work on Sundays, eat pork, don't veil my women (who are of course mine), blaspheme. Just because that serves as evidence to you is not at all a reason why it's evidence in itself, or to anyone else.
It's just a feeling based on memories of mine, and so all sorts of biased, but it feels like not long ago, it was pretty much a rule everywhere that to have this discussion, much less enact law, you had to go through a whole debate about why a given group of interpretations of Christian sexuality should not, in fact, be a decisive factor in civil law in this country. You'd be lucky to get past that stage, and often you never really did.
Just makes me glad that, in more and more places, the burden of proof is finally shifting in this discussion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Get it now?
I got it before. I was hoping it would at least have been "written" a little better (cut-aways, blocking, byplay, editing and timing, etc), or directed with a little more than half-interest.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's striking how abruptly arguments against legalizing SSM fall flat on their faces when you merely insist that, no, it's not a given that it's bad for whatever reason-you have to demonstrate why it's bad without the starting assumption that it is.
I had a very intelligent friend respond to the original decision against prop 8. by stating that it "went against common sense," and that the state should by default preference heterosexual marriage- and all the pursuant canardary about animals and incest. The argument rather withered when he could not produce a satisfactory case for it actually being in the public interest to legislate hetero-normative behavior. He was just assuming that it was a good thing.
That was the very essence of this trial: the defense really had not, and could not, prepare itself to defend the notion that the state should legislate in favor of heterosexual unions. They had thought that the default stance would be enough (as it had been for forever before), but they were totally, shockingly unprepared to handle the simplest challenge to that thesis: "What possible interest does the state have in an exclusive definition of marriage?" It turned out, none.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.
I have two gay friends from Utah who when you hear them discuss gay rights, you get that liberal vibe, but when they discuss just about everything else they sound no different than most folks in Utah. Uber conservative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, but you're some sort of bleeding heart liberal (how on Earth that became a slur among social conservative Christians is beyond me), and therefore everything you say is suspect unless it confirms our preexisting beliefs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, but you're some sort of bleeding heart liberal (how on Earth that became a slur among social conservative Christians is beyond me),
Not bootstrappy enough.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.
I have two gay friends from Utah who when you hear them discuss gay rights, you get that liberal vibe, but when they discuss just about everything else they sound no different than most folks in Utah. Uber conservative.
Everything about gay rights is in the republican wheelhouse, except the conservative base is irrationally homophobic. I think Adam Carolla summed it up rather well for a fiscal conservative, non-homophobe, and sounded a lot like you would think a republican would sound: "why do I think gays should be allowed to get married, first because they're citizens, and because they pay taxes, but mostly so that we can just move on." this is of course played for laughs, but it's rather a strong indictment of moral conservatives. .
When you get down to the brass tacks, little of their position on gay rights makes any sense in relation to their views on government involvement with personal, private lives, except that there is a baseline assumption that the law should actively preference Christians ( often packaged as "protect" Christian values). Take somebody like Carolla who comes by conservative opinions on his own, without a religious background (he's an atheist), and the anti-gay stuff is right out the window. And you can't say that for a lot of basic conservative values: there is nothing behind this but religious indoctrination.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...there is nothing behind this but religious indoctrination.
Please define "this".
I totally disagree with the side who is against SSM, but I understand a bit of where they are coming from.
The thing is, you don't -legislate- your religion or your morality. Laws are not for protecting traditions, customs or preferences. Laws are for protecting people from obvious and direct harm from others (as well as other things).
If you feel strongly that SSM is wrong, live that way; teach your kids that way, and don't associate with those who disagree (stay out of big cities). That's fine and dandy. But please don't try and force your mindset on to the world around you, especially through such a heavy weapon as the law.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think I was quite clear. You need to tell me what you aren't getting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Orincoro, I know we disagree pretty vehemently on a plenty of other issues, but I think you (and Carolla) are pretty much nailing this for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe by 'this' he meant 'the ultimate reasons behind opposition towards SSM and homosexuality in general'. None of it is rooted in any completely secular philosophy or ideology oriented towards rationlism. All of it stems from, somewhere back down the line-and very, very often not very far back at all, like right in your face even!-stems from 'God says so'.
So of course you understand a bit where they're coming from. Even in America, our culture is steeped in religious influence, and that same influence teaches us 'gay=icky!' almost universally, and that's at the low end of things. You grew up in our culture too, so it's natural you understand a bit of where they're coming from.
But, see, that's just a feeling. You go on to describe all of the reasons you don't understand where they're coming from. The position against SSM and homosexuality isn't just 'gay bad', a private opinion. It's 'gay bad, government should say so'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, exactly Rakeesh. Ultimately there is no sound justification offered for maintaining a status quo legal situation regarding gay rights to marriage. The justification offered is an appeal to traditional values that are not justifiable for codification in law.
So, just as you may feel that women should take care of children at home by default (in general) because it has always been that way, and been that way for a reason, this does not provide a clear mandate for codification within the statutues of law- and in fact, the framework of our legal system and tradition strongly contradict such an impulse. Our system also strongly contradicts prop 8. Anybody who says it doesn't, frankly, doesn't have a great handle on the subject.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't disagree on any particular point...someone write down this date! Rakeeeh, Orincoro and me agreed about something today! Sure sign of the apocalypse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not particularly tickled when you point out that we agree on something. You may find it amusing. Probably you're just uncomfortable agreeing with me without signaling it as some sort of exceptional circumstance. It's a little insulting- even when you try to pass it for cute. Perhaps you should have enough confidence in yourself not to have to be apologetic when you share an opinion with someone else. I didn't make you agree with me, you already did.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Get over yourself dude.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Stop being such a lightweight.
That is to say: pull your weight in a conversation, and you won't have to make silly comments about agreeing with other people when they say what you don't know how to say for yourself.
Or I don't know, just stop being a tool about it. There's dignity in: "I agree," and not much in "Gaw Shucks Mabel! I agree with you on something, golly-jee wizz!" It's embarrassing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Please, you don't need more ways of embarrassing yourself. At least you have enough dignity to pretend you never agree with anyone, even when you do.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are you allergic to the highground?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:snort:
Clever.
I happened to read where someone said that exact thing to you not so long ago.
But that's just method number 5 right- constant unapologetic cribbing?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Aren't we tough now. But I'm not the one trashing someone for a common internet witticism.
In fact it's a trope; Your Approval Fills Me With Shame.
Which is what it was, eye rolling worthy as someone who at least claims to the level of intellect you do sees fit to waste his and everyone else's time on it.
Leave Stone_Wolf and other new posters alone for their memeyness, you are not helping.
e: If I am anything, it is that I am a combat protagonist, you get trained these things in the People's Liberation Army Cyberforce.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Seriously man, whatever it is about me that bugs you so much, get over it already. It's played out and boring. And if you can't get over it, just keep it to yourself. All I see when you post stuff like this is "Blah blah blah." And it makes it harder to take your other posts seriously.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This puts a whole new spin on the phrase "agree to disagree".
"Insist on disagreeing" perhaps?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This puts a whole new spin on the phrase "agree to disagree".
"Insist on disagreeing" perhaps?
I believe we call it an "inverted" trope. Rather than add a new one for every variation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Inverted would be "Disagree to agree". Which I suppose is close in this instance.
edit: Or perhaps "Agree while being disagreeable".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seriously man, whatever it is about me that bugs you so much, get over it already. It's played out and boring. And if you can't get over it, just keep it to yourself. All I see when you post stuff like this is "Blah blah blah." And it makes it harder to take your other posts seriously.
Perhaps you shouldn't post trivial insulting nonsense for no reason then. Problem solved. I'm sure you'll survive without saying "A sure sign of the apocalypse" for the 5th time in response to something I say that you agree with. You actually agree with me on a fairly regular basis; which makes since, because I'm often right.
Don't get a persecution complex, I don't care that much if you agree with me. I would just rather you not constantly undermine yourself in this way, and at my expense as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Inverted would be "Disagree to agree". Which I suppose is close in this instance.
edit: Or perhaps "Agree while being disagreeable".
I agree *to be* disagreeable. Or I refuse to be improperly agreed with.
But either way, I accept your apology.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree *to be* disagreeable.
Clearly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Inverted would be "Disagree to agree". Which I suppose is close in this instance.
edit: Or perhaps "Agree while being disagreeable".
I agree *to be* disagreeable. Or I refuse to be improperly agreed with.
But either way, I accept your apology.
Oh, I never apologize. At least, not here. I'm too deep in the apology hole to even pay interest, let alone entertain the principle.
That almost sounded like a song lyric.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I accept your apology regardless of whether you apologize.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree *to be* disagreeable.
Clearly.
Shut your mouth hole, or I'll be forced to accept your apology.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Perhaps you shouldn't post trivial insulting nonsense for no reason then. Problem solved. I'm sure you'll survive without saying "A sure sign of the apocalypse" for the 5th time in response to something I say that you agree with. You actually agree with me on a fairly regular basis; which makes since, because I'm often right.
Don't get a persecution complex, I don't care that much if you agree with me. I would just rather you not constantly undermine yourself in this way, and at my expense as well.
Blah blah blah. Bored now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's more like it. Now just remember to smile.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I viewed it not unlike Orincoro, albeit it many levels lower. It does come off, to me at least, as a little insulting-even if unintended-if not just surprise but amazement is expressed repeatedly on agreeing with someone. There's a whiff, somewhere, of, "Wow, you're not totally crazy!" Or perhaps kissing cousins kind of closeness.
I don't think you meant it that way, Stone, and I may very well be mistaken when I think you've expressed similar amazement before. Just wanted to point out Orincoro's was not a lone interpretation, though I disavow his method of expressing it.
(Hey, Blayne, this doesn't help your case when you complain about other people following you around bugging you.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks Rakeeeh...all I meant was all of us agreeing is strange and rare. One day I hope Orincoro and I will be able to put aside our differences as you and I have, although I'm not holding my breath about the timing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not, though. You and I have more in common than in contrast...and on this issue, at leasst, I would have predicted your eventual agreement anyway.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't know about "eventual" as I was part of this thread on page one with the same stance I have now. I have always been pro equal rights.
The rare and strange thing is a conversation where all three of us (some of the most disagreeable Hatrackers there are) all at the same time agree, and the comment was just a bit of fun and not intended to be a jab at anyone. Nor do I remember (for the record) having pointing this out before.
I'm explaining all this to you where I did not for Orincoro as his behavior is such that I choose to not engage him on any meaningful level as it would only fuel the flames, where as for your part, you have been calm and reasonable, and I appropriate it and am therefore happy to explain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
National Organization for Marriage decides to give Starbucks some unintended good press, with a Boycott!
They got something like 17k pledges so far. Which is something like an eighth the number of 'thank you starbucks' counterpledges.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:WASHINGTON -- The U.S. appeals court in Boston became the first such court to strike down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling Thursday that it unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
The ruling is a victory for gay-rights advocates and the Obama administration, which had refused to defend that part of the 1996 law.
The decision sets the stage for a ruling next year by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the law that limits federal recognition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
The Boston-based judges stressed their decision did not establish a national right to gay marriage. That issue remains a matter for the states, they said.
But in states such as Massachusetts, where gays and lesbians can legally marry, the federal government cannot deny these couples the right to file a joint federal tax return or to receive a survivor's benefit under the Social Security Act, the appeals court said.
rollin', rollin'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's a heartening development.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
FOF's are usually the most heartening in this sort of thing. Expectedly, I am liking a lot of the wording in this ruling:
quote:The court ruled the denial of federal benefits to married gay couples was not "adequately supported by any permissible federal interest"
We should be getting close to the point where the GOP begins to get itchy on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage as a wedge issue, since the strategists likely now at least see the advent of the conclusion in which their actions and stance will have come to hurt them direly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
countdown to 9th court being called a bunch of liberal radicals imposing their x in our y
3
2
1
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: National Organization for Marriage decides to give Starbucks some unintended good press, with a Boycott!
They got something like 17k pledges so far. Which is something like an eighth the number of 'thank you starbucks' counterpledges.
I missed this before. So, a largely Mormon organization boycotts Starbucks...that doesn't strike me as a particularly effective threat.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
It looks like Maryland is going to go to the ballot. $100,000 was spent by the Christian groups to try and stop gay marriage from becoming legal and get petition signatures. So much better than spending that money on, I don't know, ending world hunger or something.
Gay couple can, however, divorce legally in Maryland now. I'm not sure how the state can recognize marriage for divorce purposes, if the marriage itself isn't recognized.
Maybe one day my daughter's best friend will have parents legally married under the law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: countdown to 9th court being called a bunch of liberal radicals imposing their x in our y
3
2
1
This Boston decision was the 1st Circuit Court.
Them liberal radicals are everywhere.
I just hope this hastens the decision to SCOTUS so we can get it over with and move on. GOP is on the losing side of this issue. Public opinion has shifted dramatically in the last decade. Opinion polls show one of the steepest shifts in public perception on any contentious social issue I can think of in US history. It's over the 50% mark for the first time, and stands to only continue on its course toward acceptance. Like many other social issues, the GOP is on the wrong side of history on this one, and they're sacrificing their political future for the rabid interests of the present.
Though in fairness, people are stupid. We'll have forgotten this whole mess in a couple decades.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: National Organization for Marriage decides to give Starbucks some unintended good press, with a Boycott!
They got something like 17k pledges so far. Which is something like an eighth the number of 'thank you starbucks' counterpledges.
I missed this before. So, a largely Mormon organization boycotts Starbucks...that doesn't strike me as a particularly effective threat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Meanwhile, Million Moms is trying to square off against JCPenny again.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Meanwhile, Million Moms is trying to square off against JCPenny again.
Never heard of them before, but amazed by their web site. They want Marvel and DC to remove ALL references to sexual orientation. Power Girl's boobs can hang out though.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote: ALBANY, N.Y. — A court says it's no longer slander in New York to falsely call someone gay.
A mid-level appeals court on Thursday wiped out decades of rulings, including its own, to say that society no longer treats false comments that someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual as defamation. Without defamation, there is no longer slander, the court ruled.
quote: The ruling stems from an incident in the Binghamton area. Mark Yonaty sued, claiming a woman spread a rumor she heard in hopes that Yonaty's girlfriend would break up with him. He said the comment hurt and ultimately destroyed the relationship.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, yeah, and for anyone who hadn't heard about Million Moms, they were a little epic swell of notoriety:
quote: In 2012, the group started and then backed off from a failed campaign against the hiring of talk show host Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson for department store chain JC Penney. They opposed this employment on the grounds that DeGeneres is "an open homosexual". At a taping of her show, DeGeneres informed her audience of the fizzled effort: "They wanted to get me fired and I am proud and happy to say JC Penney stuck by their decision to make me their spokesperson."
The thing I noticed is that, when you read this, one million moms does indeed translate 'staying neutral in the culture war' as 'never even SHOW gay families, ever, because they are wrong and against traditional culture' ... something which is hard to parody any further.
That sort of thing-neutrality defined as an omertà level of discussion about homosexuals and homosexuality-is the sort of thing I was referencing in the idol thread.
The idea that if someone or a group doesn't make an oppositional statement about homosexuals when they're nicely closeted, that this is 'neutrality'. This is still the way things are for a lot of people, and much of the politics, in our country it seems to me. Wishing people just wouldn't talk about 'it' is still considered an acceptable way to be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You, gay person, are taking sides in our culture war, if you refuse to actively hide yourself. So is this company, if they do not restrict themselves specifically to depictions of family life that we consider appropriate. Neutrality, to us, is not to be entitled to equal status, but to a monopoly on who is allowed status. So on. So forth. It is the attitude which leads to gays being allowed to marry being translated into "oppression," on either a social or a legal level, simply because others are now allowed into an institution that you previously had all to yourself. I am being "oppressed" — not because any rights available to me have changed at all, but because now those different people are allowed into my country club. And yes, the same attitude was prevalent with the miscegenation battle over marriage.
It is because of stuff like this that I like to continually harp on that infamously telling quote of OSC's, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books ... to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." To violate their demands that gays be made to stay discreet and have to hide their behavior, their existence, is to 'go to war' against the side that attempts to own and command society's repression against gays. You are only an acceptable, equal citizen when you abide to our satisfaction with a policy that makes you unequal and lesser.
Ah, but even funner is the latent homophobia and transphobia that crops up when groups like Million Moms get right down to the real concerns that spur them to attempted boycotts. It's why I like the J Crew's painted toenails as being even better — and not just because it features Dr. Keith Ablow midway through burning out and down as fast as he could.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seriously, Degeneres could I have little doubt garner as many online followers as OMM's entire membership by, say, announcing she was thinking of being in another Pixar film, or considering hosting another show.
I've almost got to admire their brazen dishonesty when they urge JCP to remain 'neutral' in the culture wars (such a stupid term), and then go on to use words like 'deviant' and 'unhealthy' to describe homosexuality. As if it weren't perfectly clear they don't actually want neutrality at all.
I guess this is just another evolution in the gradually degrading acceptance of intolerance of homosexuality: a group doesn't demand allegiance (well, not exactly), it 'urges neutrality'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As I often point out, it's the domain of immature and overly-entitled to try and, when defeated, change the rules so that a loss becomes a sort of draw. This comes with the expectation that society should treat them as if they are entitled, by default, to a status above reproach. "I'm taking my ball and I'm going home," is essentially the strategy here; or maybe: "you can't fire me because I quit!" If you happen to be losing in the only realm that really matters in the long-term, in this case the legal realm, then you retreat to a defensive position. The fact that religious groups are adopting defensive positions now is an indication that they have already lost the initiative.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I believe you're right, but the defensive position is not the only one out there.
The one caveat being that I still believe the machinery of organized religion does not improve the world in general as much as it hurts it, by becoming a thing on its own, the basis of neo-tribalism and hatred and wars and producing other lovely byproducts. But I believe the world will eventually wise up on that point as well. Eventually.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Earlier today administrators of the One Million Moms Facebook site posted a “warning” about Green Lantern being rebooted as gay, which they quickly pulled when over one hundred pro-gay comments flooded the post. Subsequently, they wrote a Facebook post stating they would be away for a week, possibly next week, for bible camp.
quote:FYI for all of our members that are on Facebook: OMM will be offline most of next week for Vacation Bible School!…
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
All "million" of them have VBS the same week.
O_o
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
That's one big VBS.
And everyone knows, there is never any hanky-panky at sleep away bible camp.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, no. Never.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What does sleep away camp have to do with VBS?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Boycott!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
And you can find out how to boycott Google by googling boycott goo....um..nevermind.
(I know there is a joke in "Boy-Cot Gay Sex" but I don't think I want to go there)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Girlcott!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I feel like the title of this thread should say 'homomomentum' instead. 'Homomentum' makes it sound like it's dem hos who are gaining momentum. Which is not what we want.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I feel like the title of this thread should say 'homomomentum' instead. 'Homomentum' makes it sound like it's dem hos who are gaining momentum. Which is not what we want.
What about momomomentum? Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
While it's obviously a joke, it's true that the the various campaigns for gender equality in the military have been stepped up since DODT was repealed. There's been a considerably larger pushback, though... apart from the social taboos associated with women being part of the lifestyle associated with infantry and other male only MOS's, there's a general conception that women are physically incapable of handling the stresses.
I feel my own personal experiences contradict that to a degree - my job is male only. We once had a female lieutenant go out with us and she managed just fine... the taboo part wasn't really a big deal. If you think it would be, imagine sleeping curled up next to a beautiful young woman... who hasn't showered in 3 weeks in 120 degree weather, is dirty as hell, and smells horrible. And you're in a hot camouflage sleeping bag and are itchy and sweating and miserable. It might seem weird at first, being around a member of the opposite sex while she takes care of various bodily functions or briefly seeing her naked in a very nonsexual situation doesn't drive men wild with lust... who would have guessed?
The physical stress thing is a bit more of a valid point - it is true that the average female lacks the strength and endurance to perform my job. On the other hand, there's a reason why the Marines are only 5% female... the women in the Marine Corps are not "average" by any means. Just getting through boot camp and SOI (which all Marines, male and female have to complete) requires a female to be physically gifted - a very large number get broken and kicked out attempting it. (mostly with hip injuries) Almost any of them could run circles around the "average male." (who unfortunately, in America, probably couldn't run more than 3 miles to save his life)
Sorry for highjacking the thread a bit, just interested in what you all think of females in the military. Do you think there will ever be a 50/50 ratio in the military? (I mean, actual physical combat oriented military, not the Chair Force or Navy) 80/20? Or will female fighters always be something of a novelty?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it likely will happen, someday, way way wayyyy down the line. I don't think anyone reading this would be alive when it does.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it likely will happen, someday, way way wayyyy down the line. I don't think anyone reading this would be alive when it does.
I think it a dubious assumption that in 80+ years there will even be a military that exists and is filled with "grunts" in any capacity.
The world is going to be a very different place.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:And you're in a hot camouflage sleeping bag and are itchy and sweating and miserable. It might seem weird at first, being around a member of the opposite sex while she takes care of various bodily functions or briefly seeing her naked in a very nonsexual situation doesn't drive men wild with lust... who would have guessed?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in general -- but there seems to exist a *huge* problem with rape in the military.
I'd guess it's because all hierarchies are prone to abuse, and military is the strictest hierarchy you can find...
This by itself doesn't mean that women in the military is a bad thing. More women in the military might even mean *fewer* rapes. Still, that's not certain either.
quote:"Do you think there will ever be a 50/50 ratio in the military? (I mean, actual physical combat oriented military, not the Chair Force or Navy) 80/20?"
In those parts of the military where physical strength remains an advantage, and as long as joining the army remains voluntary (unlike e.g. Israel), no there won't be a 50/50 ratio in the military, nor is there much of a reason that there should be.
Unless future generations genetically engineer the sexes to have the same average physical strength. Which would be cool.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it a dubious assumption that in 80+ years there will even be a military that exists and is filled with "grunts" in any capacity.
The world is going to be a very different place.
Hmmm. You might be correct, it's true. I suspect we'll still need infantry though quite possibly in a vastly smaller size four generations down the road.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Our military does absolutely have a problem with rape, and it has stemmed from culture and institutional neglect. Other countries have proven, though, that it is not an issue we should have, and it's one we can get rid of by not being idiots.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Aris: I absolutely agree there's a huge problem with rape in our military. Actually, there's a huge problem with rape in our country. I think the reason it's so prevalent isn't so much due to anything particular to the military as much as the military is basically a large collection of young, highly aggressive and often sexually frustrated men. And they outnumber the women 20 to 1, so even if there are the same number of rapists among the men, there are a lot fewer women to rape, so statistically a larger percentage of women are assaulted. To imply that the military is doing nothing about it or is just covering it up (like that article did) annoys me, though. I've been through numerous rape prevention classes and the NCIS has been cracking down on it very hard in the past few years - several COs have been jailed for trying to cover it up, and there are a lot more cases going to trial.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
2012: The tide has turned. Voters approve same-sex marriage at the polls! (In Maryland and Maine, and probably also in WA where it is currently up 53% - 47%).
"Homomentum" definitely Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And it looks like they voted not to ban it in a couple states as well.
Of course, you also have to consider that it was already banned in dozens of states over the last decade, so this sort of feels like the settling into foxholes rather than a real turn of the tide.
SCOTUS will solve this one in the next year.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Go Maryland! Very proud to live there.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Maybe not foxholes all around.
Rhode Island is ready to put it up to vote next year in January, and Oregon and Illinois are good candidates for switching sides as well as perhaps Hawaii and Colorado. Also, independent of results of SCOTUS, California must be feeling left out and kicking themselves for letting another state beat them to the punch for approving gay marriage by vote, and they would probably amend their constitution in favor of gay marriage if presented with another referendum. (No evidence here, just my hopeful conjecture.)
After likely losing 4/4 this election, NOM will lose a lot of steam and won't be able to procure the resources to fight large-scale again in a second constitutional referendum in CA.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
AND Iowa voted to keep Justice Wiggins, who was part of their gay marriage ruling, in place on their Supreme Court.
So I guess that's 5/5: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa
I'm curious to see what NOM posts tomorrow on their blog. Something along the line of, "We lost all the contests because the misleading gay marriage supporters outspent us. Send us more money!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Keep knockin' em down, guys and dudes. Popular ballot majority wins, while expected, were the most important step, and now they're starting to come in en masse.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
I'm curious to see what NOM posts tomorrow on their blog. Something along the line of, "We lost all the contests because the misleading gay marriage supporters outspent us. Send us more money!"
"Same-sex-marriage opponents concede in Washington
Opponents of same-sex marriage have conceded, saying it appears that Referendum 74 will pass"
Yay!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I was pleased to see these results on election night, too. Especially since Kansas continues to be a bitter disappointment to me.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Wow, reading back through this thread I'm a bit ashamed of my overly cautious, pessimistic view earlier this year--less than ten months ago--on how far away I believed we were from a state electorate supporting marriage equality.
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Let's hope the best for Maryland, but again don't hold our breath. It is almost certain there will be referendums in both Washington state and Maryland before either law will go into effect. Sadly, at this point, I still think any state will reject gay marriage if put to a popular vote, due to both the Bradley Effect and the fact that the older generations are the most faithful voters.
I guess I was susceptible to the previous mantra of opponents: "in 32 out of 32 states, voters have never approved SSM." Maine was the only state I had no reservations about voting, since they seemed likely to go back every single election cycle if necessary with another citizen initiative.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I have been wondering after Tuesday's vote, perhaps the Bradley Effect is no longer going to be an issue in polling on gay marriage? The final polls did not understate opposition as much as many other elections. This 2010 study by Professor Patrick Egan at NYU found that opposition to SSM on average has been understated by 7 percent.
from the study:
quote: Nevertheless, survey data consistently underestimate voter opposition to legal recognition of samesex couples. The share of voters in pre‐election surveys saying they will vote to ban same‐sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day.
Here we go, another strong argument to vote for SSM (video warning: language). If we don't, gay men will marry your girlfriends. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I'd marry zuckerberg there to get at that piano sun lounge
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
right in the feels
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That was beautiful. Between that and the Landfilharminc video, I was crying at my desk most of yesterday afternoon.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here's their wedding photo.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Santas getting married!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just playin' house is all.
just playing dress-up in their parents clothes
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No post about the SCOTUS decision to take up DOMA and Prop 8?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Marriage being a state issue eliminates doma which would make people happy. It also doesn't affect the CA issue because the original ruling was based on the California constitution, not the us. Also, the prop 8 ruling was extremely limited but in the briefing the anti Ssm defined the ruling to be very broadly in favor of Ssm so this supreme court case could broaden the definition of the past ruling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
prop 8's case going to the SCOTUS is a pretty best-case scenario because the case was an absolute self-inflicted fiasco for the "defenders of marriage" folk, every finding of fact went against them, and the conclusions are written as a very long love letter appealing directly to the rulings and mentality of roberts
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
I don't like the reason SCOTUS is considering not hearing the case on DOMA. Sets a dangerous precedent.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Samp- I thought it was appealing to Kennedy. Lyrhawn- can you expand on this? I am not sure what yoU are referring to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Basically, when Obama decided to stop defending DOMA in the Courts, there's no longer an entity that has legal standing to do so.
SCOTUS is considering dropping the case because Senate Republicans, who want to defend the law, might not have standing.
If that's the case, then in the future, all the president has to do when a case he doesn't like comes before SCOTUS is to take his ball and go home. It's sort of like a sneaky veto.
Sure, DOMA would still get struck down, an I'd be happy about that, but I'd rather SCOTUS do it, not a lower court.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
recap part: das rulings in the prop 8 case
quote:"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."
"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."
"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."
"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
Most important: the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
It's not really a possibility. That's probably what you're missing. Prop 8 is so baldly anti-constitutional, so badly defended and so indefensible that it stands almost no chance of being upheld, and the previous decisions stand almost no chance of being reversed. And a decision on Prop. 8 from the supreme court effectively sets precedent against any such future laws. It will establish a powerful reason for federal courts to easily dismiss such laws, and thus a powerful disincentive for proposing them.
The mistake, or inevitable miscalculation by anti-SSM folks in California was trying to manipulate our state constitution. That got the feds involved, and now it's a federal matter- and the decision will go against prop. 8. That is as near a certainty as we can have about a SCOTUS decision. How much against is the only question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Despite Gingrich’s two divorces and history of infidelity, he has attempted to present himself as a defender of traditional marriage throughout his unsuccessful campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions. He said the movement toward marriage equality was a “temporary aberration that will dissipate” and compared same-sex relationships to “pagan behaviors.”
quote:On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he 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. “I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with,” he said, noting that the debate’s dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Saw that; hrray.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
We're heading down the home stretch! One month until the final SCOTUS showdown on March 26.
And we just may have a Roe v. Wade type watershed ruling coming that establishes equal marriage nationwide.
quote: In explaining the legal merits of their cause (equal protection under the 14th Amendment; Loving v. Virginia, in which the court called marriage one of the “basic civil rights of man” as well as a “fundamental freedom”), the challengers [AGAINST PROP 8**] are also adept at claiming emotional territory.
They point out that “in their 65-page brief about marriage in California,” the supporters of Proposition 8 “do not even mention the word ‘love.” Nor do the supporters understand “the privacy, liberty, and associational values” that underlie marriage. They believe the institution exists so that society can channel “heterosexual potential parents into ‘responsible procreation.’”
Arguing against this “cramped,” “state-centric,” “utilitarian” take — which doesn’t make sense because the state could theoretically deny any infertile couple the right to marry — the challengers emphasize that marriage involves “love, commitment and intimacy.” They present themselves as champions of the human heart.
As they frame the debate, it’s man versus machine. So-called traditionalists see marriage like a state-owned factory for creating new citizens, while those who endorse equality value the rights and feelings of individuals.
ETA: **added for clarity
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
I know, amazing isn't it! Who'da thought? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm still nervous about how they decide the issue of standing. I think DOMA gets knocked down regardless, but I don't want it to happen on a technicality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
to be honest, it IS a pretty soulless and mechanical envisioning of marriage that they used to try to find some space they could work the no-homo angle as a legitimate state interest, and I don't need to make the case that the proponents were dummies, they did a good enough job of doing that on their own, in court.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not speaking to the merits of their arguments. But if the National Review came out with a big opinion piece on why Obamacare proponents are big government ninnies, and their arguments all rest on a sense of "entitlement" but that opponents have clear effective passionate arguments that support personal freedom, the economy, and better healthcare, I'd have the same response.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The National Review is on the same level as the New York Times now?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not making a comparison of quality either. Just bias.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Is the quality of media like NYT and the National Review not related to their bias?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Not to claim the NYT has no bias, but in the blog post linked above the NYT heavily quotes from the merits brief submitted by Olson/Boies.
No bias is necessary here from the NYT; they seem to convey the spirit of the brief as written. That is precisely the tone used in the introduction of the brief:
quote: Proponents accuse Plaintiffs (repeatedly) of “redefining marriage.” E.g., Prop. Br. 2. But it is Proponents who have imagined (not from any of thisCourt’s decisions) a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into “responsible pro-creation.” In their 65-page brief about marriage inCalifornia, Proponents do not even mention the word “love.” They seem to have no understanding of the privacy, liberty, and associational values that underlie this Court’s recognition of marriage as a fundamental, personal right... under Proponents’ peculiar, litigation-inspired concept of marriage, same-sex couples have no need to be married and no cause to complain that they are excluded from the “most important relation in life.” Indeed, Proponents’state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to “responsible” procreation.
This, of course, reflects a complete “failure to ap-preciate the extent of the liberty at stake,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003), not to mention matters such as love, commitment, and intimacy that most Americans associate with marriage. As Proponents see it, marriage exists solely to serve society’s interest; it makes no sense to speak of an individual’s right to marry.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
I'm not sure I'm following the complaint here. Are you upset that they are reporting the truth that fits into your perception of their bias?
I also think you're reading it wrong. Though the leaders of prop 8 supporters are pretty terrible people, that's not what I see as the point here.
What I read was about the pretty clever maneuver the anti-prop 8 people pulled to highlight how far the pro people had to stretch to make the we need to keep gays from marrying argument. You have to strip all the emotional, personal contexts from marriage (you know, the stuff that the vast majority of people see as the primary aspects of marriage) to even have a chance of denying it to gay people.
As I read it, the author isn't explicitly agreeing with this perspective (I mean, you get that he is, but I think that's also because it is so obviously the truth). Rather he's describing the way they've framed the argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not speaking to the merits of their arguments. But if the National Review came out with a big opinion piece on why Obamacare proponents are big government ninnies, and their arguments all rest on a sense of "entitlement" but that opponents have clear effective passionate arguments that support personal freedom, the economy, and better healthcare, I'd have the same response.
Well, that's an equivalent response that you can only have specifically by not speaking to the merits of the article's argument.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Apparently 75 signed on so far (and counting?).... finally!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
I'm not sure I'm following the complaint here. Are you upset that they are reporting the truth that fits into your perception of their bias?
I also think you're reading it wrong. Though the leaders of prop 8 supporters are pretty terrible people, that's not what I see as the point here.
What I read was about the pretty clever maneuver the anti-prop 8 people pulled to highlight how far the pro people had to stretch to make the we need to keep gays from marrying argument. You have to strip all the emotional, personal contexts from marriage (you know, the stuff that the vast majority of people see as the primary aspects of marriage) to even have a chance of denying it to gay people.
As I read it, the author isn't explicitly agreeing with this perspective (I mean, you get that he is, but I think that's also because it is so obviously the truth). Rather he's describing the way they've framed the argument.
I'm not upset at all. I read the NYTs every single day. But the opinions of their editorial staff on this issue are basically unanimous. So any pieces dealing with this issue (right or wrong) is going to be lopsided. It'd be like a New England paper in the 1850s talking about slavery needing to be abolished. Expected, and unsurprising.
-----
quote:Well, that's an equivalent response that you can only have specifically by not speaking to the merits of the article's argument.
How very true!
-------
quote: Apparently 75 signed on so far (and counting?).... finally!
I wish it hadn't taken so long. There is so much to conservatism that speaks to giving people the freedom to enter into contracts and compacts like marriage without government interference.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I saw that. I initially thought, "Now the police have no ruled this a homicide yet...I shouldn't assume things."
Another part of me was like, "Homicide, homicide, it's homicide."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there is also the remaining assumption, that I certainly don't want to see borne true but which I cynically assume:
he was probably killed because of his open homosexuality
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there is also the remaining assumption, that I certainly don't want to see borne true but which I cynically assume:
he was probably killed because of his open homosexuality
I suspect that is likely the case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He could have just been killed because he had a nice truck, though. or because he was black. or some combination of the two.
~the south~
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Okay, N.O.M., what's the plan?
Since OSC is on the board, maybe he can tell us in what order they are going to organize their boycotts against the corporations who, like Starbucks and General Mills, "took sides in the culture war" by signing amicus briefs in *support* of gay marriage for the upcoming SCOTUS cases.
Beware the wrath of NOM, you puny corporations! Let the boycotts begin!
quote:A - Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, Apple, Inc. B - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston Medical Center, Corp. C- CBS Corporation, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities D - Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Deustche Bank, AG E - EBay, Inc. Eldercare, Inc. F - Facebook, Inc., 500BC G - The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Inc. H - Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries I - Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc. J - Jet Blue Airways, Johnson & Johnson K - Kimpton Hotel and Restuarant Group, Kinzer Real Estate L - Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. M - Mars, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, The McGraw-Hill Companies N - New York Life Insurance Company, NIKE O - Oracle America, Orbitz Worldwide P - Pfizer, Inc. Puma Spring Vineyards Q - Qualcomm, Inc. R - Ray Holley Communications, Resource Systems Group, Inc. S - Silicon Valley Progressive Faith Community, Starbucks Corporation T - Total Home Improvement, Inc. Twitter, Inc. U - U.S. Balloon Company, Unigo, LLC V - Viacom, Inc. Vulcan, Inc. W - Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group, X - Zerox Corporation Z - Zynga, Inc.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he can add fish & richardson to that list, I got to watch that take place.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Okay, N.O.M., what's the plan?
Since OSC is on the board, maybe he can tell us in what order they are going to organize their boycotts against the corporations who, like Starbucks and General Mills, "took sides in the culture war" by signing amicus briefs in *support* of gay marriage for the upcoming SCOTUS cases.
Beware the wrath of NOM, you puny corporations! Let the boycotts begin!
quote:A - Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, Apple, Inc. B - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston Medical Center, Corp. C- CBS Corporation, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities D - Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Deustche Bank, AG E - EBay, Inc. Eldercare, Inc. F - Facebook, Inc., 500BC G - The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Inc. H - Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries I - Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc. J - Jet Blue Airways, Johnson & Johnson K - Kimpton Hotel and Restuarant Group, Kinzer Real Estate L - Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. M - Mars, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, The McGraw-Hill Companies N - New York Life Insurance Company, NIKE O - Oracle America, Orbitz Worldwide P - Pfizer, Inc. Puma Spring Vineyards Q - Qualcomm, Inc. R - Ray Holley Communications, Resource Systems Group, Inc. S - Silicon Valley Progressive Faith Community, Starbucks Corporation T - Total Home Improvement, Inc. Twitter, Inc. U - U.S. Balloon Company, Unigo, LLC V - Viacom, Inc. Vulcan, Inc. W - Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group, X - Zerox Corporation Z - Zynga, Inc.
I guess they have to stop using computers and cell phones (Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, Google, etc.). Maybe that means we'll hear a lot less from them.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm just impressed they got at least one Q, X, and Z!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, I admit it's so easy to hold NOM in contempt. Perhaps not a good thing to feel (although I'm not convinced it's actually bad to feel satisfaction when someone or thing bad is thwarted), but I do. It's also satisfying to watch the rather brisk pace of their turn from status-quo majority to derided fringe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: I guess they have to stop using computers and cell phones (Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, Google, etc.). Maybe that means we'll hear a lot less from them.
Either that or move to Korea or China. Which would be fun to watch for other reasons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Man, I admit it's so easy to hold NOM in contempt. Perhaps not a good thing to feel
NOM: Gays are bad...and spelling too.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
More good news:
quote: A member of the Illinois Republican Party’s central committee says a meeting was canceled partly because there weren’t enough votes to fire party chairman Pat Brady.
Some committeemen wanted to oust Brady, largely because he publicly supported a bill to legalize gay marriage earlier this year.
A meeting had been scheduled for Saturday. It was canceled Friday night amid pressure from prominent Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and House Republican Leader Tom Cross.
Yet another lost battle for NOM who has been actively advocating his removal as GOP party chair. I wonder how much longer it will take until NOM finally fades away?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I have been thinking that the upcoming SCOTUS cases on DOMA and Prop 8 have the potential to repair the rift in the GOP over gay marriage rights.
If the Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide, that will diffuse the GOP infighting over the issue, since it will be settled in a way that they can say was out of their hands. That would repair the inter-generational schism within the party, since a majority of younger Republicans support gay nuptials. Such an outcome would allow GOP candidates to rant about how they disagree with the decision and thus maintain the support of far right voters within their party base, including many Evangelicals, but at the same time remove any need for politicians to have to vote "no" on pro-gay legislation which would alienate younger Republicans and moderates.
I wonder if some behind-the-scenes pressure may be coming from party leaders pushing for such an outcome? It makes sense that they may find it in their best interest for a sweeping decision from the Court to "impose" equal marriage.
Of course, eliminating gay marriage bans throughout the country is the correct decision legally and morally no matter the political considerations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have a link, but a federal district court judge heard arguments on Thursday for gay marriage in Michigan. It was a hotly anticipated decision that has been in the making for more than a year, but he ended up pushing off his ruling until after SCOTUS rules. Most people think it's because if SCOTUS rules against gay marriage, he can rule on other grounds. So it looks like the ban in Michigan is in danger.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Of course, eliminating gay marriage bans throughout the country is the correct decision legally and morally no matter the political considerations.
The smartest possible thing the Republicans could do right now, even better than actively supporting gay marriage, would be to just stop talking about it, full stop. Let the court decisions change the laws, let the legislatures write new ones, let the Democrats introduce national legislation, and let it pass by a slim majority. That would take the wind out of victorious sales for Democrats who never fought very hard for gay rights in the first place, most of them.
As it is, the only thing Obama has on Republicans is that he righted his ship a year or two before everyone else had gotten around to it (although late for a democratic). It's not much of a victory for dems unless the Republicans make it one by fighting against reason, hope, and, really, the whole basis of our democracy.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Here's the latest bizarre NOM strategy approaching the gay marriage SCOTUS cases:
quote: "You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Senator Rob Portman, once speculated to be a strong potential V.P. running mate for Romney, comes out *for* gay marriage.
His son is gay.
Having a close friend or family member who is gay often seems to trump philosophical rationalizations against gay rights and gay marriage. It personalizes the issue.
quote:Overall, those who say they have a family member or close friend who is gay are more than twice as likely to support gay marriage as those who don’t — 55% to 25%.
The survey is from 2007 data; I couldn't locate a more recent one. But the same relationship held as well in a 2003 Pew poll with percentages of 39% versus 21%.
quote:"...most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends — if they indeed are your friends — you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in, and once they realize that we are indeed their children and that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do you will feel so much better.”
Not marriage, but a step forward.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
IT BEGINS
quote:on March 26th & March 27th the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA and California's Prop 8. What's all this and why should you care?
Prop 8 The first case that will be heard is Hollingsworth v. Perry In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal under the California constitution which made gay people very happy and started getting gay married as hell and made bigots sad because gay people were happy and enjoying some legal protections. Unfortunately for the gays the California constitution was amended to implicitly state that no gay marriage was allowed anymore by the California constitution by California's retarded proposition system. In response a lawsuit was filed now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry that asserted that Prop 8 was unconstitutional under federal law. Why Hollingsworth and not the Gov? Well the last two administrations decided that Prop 8 was dumb and terrible and wouldn't defend it in court so some asshole by the name of Dennis Hollingsworth stepped in and said "I want to be known as the bigot trying to hurt gay people" and thus the lawsuit moved forward.
DOMA is a federal law banning federal recognition of gay marriage and this makes us homosexuals sad because like to be recognized, why do you think we wear all that glitter? Also federal recognition of gay marriage comes with a lot of other benefits under the law such as joint filing of taxes and taxation of property upon death of a spouse which is why we are here:
United States v. Windsor
The second arguments will be on United Starts v. Windsor which is a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA which is a case brought by Edith Windsor after the death of her spouse Thea Spyer. In 2007 they legally married in Canada and returned back to New York which under state law recognized their same sex Canadian marriage as valid, then Thea Spyer died and let her assets to her wife Edith. Under federal law assets left to a surviving spouse are not taxed as income but the federal government is prevented by law from recognizing same sex marriages like Edith and Thea's and that includes the IRS which sent Edith a bill for $363,000 which pissed her off because it is grossly unfair and caused her to file a federal lawsuit challenging it. Pretty much everyone agrees that DOMA is unconstitutional as hell which includes the US Department of Justice under Obama who said they would not defend the law because it was terrible and unconstitutional and a huge waste of money so noted protectors of limited government and fiscal responsibility House Republicans stepped in and shoveled $3M into a private law firm to defend it.
quote:This might be the most important case the SCOTUS will decide in recent history and a lot of us will be following the hell out of it, it will be live blogged, twittered, facebooked, myspaced, AOLed and lots of other Web 2.0 buzzwords and the court has also said they will release audio of the hearing very quickly. Expect to hear lots of dumb as hell stuff from people that should know better because the opposing arguments are all terrible and offensive that will simultaneously cause us to laugh and cry.
Over the next three days I will update this thread with links to resources to follow the hearings and we can all laugh and cry together at the circus both inside the court room and outside as gay supporters (decent human beings)and opposition (terrible bigots) are both rallying around the court house.
[ March 26, 2013, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 30m Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 30m Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.
At first I thought this said this: "#prop8 likely to be upheld, struck down, or #scotus won't decide case..."
I'll put my money on that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, this is over. Arguments concluded. Proposition 8 will either stay invalidated, or actively be ruled unconstitutional.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But no larger national decision will be made. The long march continues...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's actually not so cut and dried.
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
Everything seems to hinge on Justice Kennedy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because I am clearly not a lawyer, why would a ruling of no standing vacate the previous rulings?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My understanding is that it would vacate only the federal court ruling below it, not the district court below that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's actually not so cut and dried.
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
dagonee, you're posting on the wrong account :B
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My understanding is that it would vacate only the federal court ruling below it, not the district court below that.
So it would vacate the ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's actually not so cut and dried.
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
dagonee, you're posting on the wrong account :B
Zounds! I've been found out!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like seriously I guess you can get away with saying "It's actually not so cut and dried" but honestly this is pretty over. Anyone who thinks that Prop 8 stands a good chance of being saved by the supreme court
For all its flaws, every human being on the SCOTUS (yes, all seven of them) know that the social forces at play here are so monumental that the only thing they have in their power is to move us forward in removing the delay and denial of a right for homosexuals. It is not within their power to stop gay marriage. It is only within their power to monkeywrench into their legacy that time that they temporarily re-instituted Proposition 8, and they know they will not live the infamy of that ruling down, and the history books will say "the damage was later undone" by future rulings and/or legislation. They know what they're looking at, so the odds of them saving proposition 8 are minuscule.
Intrade may be dead, but my love of fat stacks of easy cash is not. Perhaps if some are convinced otherwise, I should let them put their money where their mouth is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh I don't think Prop 8 is safe, I think it's going to leave eventually. But SCOTUS has so many other legal issues it has to consider, not just the actual case in front of them, but the manner in which it reached them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My understanding is that it would vacate only the federal court ruling below it, not the district court below that.
Right, which means Prop 8 would be still gone. No standing = no Prop 8. They'd have to bring a new challenge to the ruling from some other party with standing to appeal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The manner in which it reached them was that california didn't even want to defend their own law because they already disagreed with it. But never one to be hesitant when faced with the opportunity to bravely champion doomed bigotry, fiscally responsible state republicans fronted millions of dollars in monies to defend prop 8 in court, and their attempt to do so in court was so painfully bad that every finding of fact went against them in court so
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.
MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.
MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn--
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional --
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple -- I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
(Laughter.)
boom
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is rather satisfying to hear arguments I have been making for 30mumble years coming from Supreme Court Justices.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Meh. Read the full transcript. You'll hear 30 year old arguments against SSM coming out of some of those supreme court justices' mouths.
Having read it in full, I did not come away with an overall good feeling.
Edit: And the tap-dancing the Solicitor General had to do for the administration's position was downright painful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't really expect to hear anything good from some of the justices. Or anything at all from Justice Thomas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Meh. Read the full transcript. You'll hear 30 year old arguments against SSM coming out of some of those supreme court justices' mouths.
Of course you will. Scalia isn't dead yet, right?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The manner in which it reached them was that california didn't even want to defend their own law because they already disagreed with it. But never one to be hesitant when faced with the opportunity to bravely champion doomed bigotry, fiscally responsible state republicans fronted millions of dollars in monies to defend prop 8 in court, and their attempt to do so in court was so painfully bad that every finding of fact went against them in court so
That's not what I am talking about. And there are some serious legal problems with striking down DOMA *and* striking down Prop 8. If you strike down DOMA and say it's because marriage is a state issue not a federal one, and the federal government had no business passing DOMA then that creates problems for saying Prop 8 is unconstitutional because a state government passed it.
Look, I'm with you on both these issues. But SCOTUS can't just say, "Zap to DOMA and Zap to Prop 8." They have to create a legal framework for nixing one without making it a legal gymnastics act to nix the other.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There is no such conflict here BB. While both deal with constitutional interpretation of equal protection under the law (specifically gays as a protected class), the decisions may easily compliment each other. For example, the striking of prop 8 could set a narrow precedent for overturning constitutional changes by states, but a broad one for protection of gays as a protected class. Then that precedent could all but decide the DOMA decision. They both deal with the same area of the constitution, but their differences as to state or federal law will have less bearing than you think.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If you strike down DOMA and say it's because marriage is a state issue not a federal one, and the federal government had no business passing DOMA then that creates problems for saying Prop 8 is unconstitutional because a state government passed it.
I think this all needs significant review on your end, because nothing I'm reading here seems true to me. Prop 8 wasn't invalidated "because a state government passed it" — it was overturned based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a way which I am pretty sure could be applied equally to a federal law ...
...like DOMA. Which likewise was not ruled unconstitutional "because marriage is a state issue not a federal one." It wasn't ruled unconstitutional based on some idea that it was a power that should remain with the states, it was ruled unconstitutional because of the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Scotus does not have to create a legal framework for nixing those two based on the rulings you have ascribed to them, because what you described has nothing to do with why both laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's fine it doesn't seem true to you. It's what understood the problem to be, and it's what newspapers have been warning against.
I'll wait until the decision is handed down. I'd rather just sit tight and wait for that than discuss the stuff going in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
where who's warning about this?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I looked, but was unsuccessful. I'll try again later.
:\
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: This article from the SCOTUS blog outlines what I was concerned with.
If DOMA is unconstitutional because it's the federal government using a power reserved for the states, then it becomes hard to argue that California does not have the right to pass Prop 8.
It's not impossible of course, and I think both pieces of legislation will end up in the dustbin, but you have to arrive there with a clear precedent that won't scuff up other things down the road.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.
Wow, how stupid can Mr Cooper be? I'm completely in favour of same-sex marriage, but the proper answer to this is and should have been "Yes, of course the states are constitutionally entitled to limit the institution of marriage according to age, or fertility."
Where does it say in the US Consitution that there can't be barriers to marriage according to age or fertility in state law?
Same as liberals, it seems that conservatives just consider "what is in the Constitution" and "what we would like to be in the Constitution" as being one and the same.
And as a sidenote, I'm all in favour of states' rights on this issue. Some states should be allowed to not recognize marriage at all -- others to recognize only hetero fertile marriage, others to recognize polygamous marriage, etc, etc.
As such it's my opinion that DOMA should be struck down, and that states rights should be allowed to continue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And as a sidenote, I'm all in favour of states' rights on this issue. Some states should be allowed to not recognize marriage at all -- others to recognize only hetero fertile marriage, others to recognize polygamous marriage, etc, etc.
considering that this creates a system of effective inequality in the united states against a class which has to be granted strict scrutiny, how is this standpoint a good one that should be perpetuated?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:considering that this creates a system of effective inequality in the united states against a class which has to be granted strict scrutiny,
I believe that the standards of strict scrutiny is that the class's characteristics "must have little relationship to the government's policy aims or the ability of the group's members to contribute to society"
If the state government policy for the purpose of marriage is *explicitly* its desire to encourage procreation, then old age and homosexuality become relevant characteristics, as they pertain to fertility -- and thus pass the "strict scrutiny" criterion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So according to you it would be constitutional for a state government to refuse to grant marriage licenses to infertile couples? That the federal government should have no recourse if a state decides to do this? Because you've just entered a realm that not even Cooper would tread.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:So according to you it would be constitutional for a state government to refuse to grant marriage licenses to infertile couples?
Yes, I just said that in a couple posts above: "Some states should be allowed to not recognize marriage at all -- others to recognize only hetero fertile marriage"
quote:That the federal government should have no recourse if a state decides to do this?
Yes.
quote:Because you've just entered a realm that not even Cooper would tread.
I believe in states's rights more than Cooper (or conservatives) do, that's both obvious and unsurprising to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You believe in states' rights more than the constitution does. No such law would fail to be struck down as unconstitutional by any SCOTUS in living memory. Due process and equal protection clauses alone render it starkly unconstitutional.
The same process for saying that it can pass strict scrutiny (as described here) could be used to say that a state can ignore the ADA, the Civil Rights Act, and the federal government should have no power to act against that.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:You believe in states' rights more than the constitution does.
You assert this but you don't explain how it's so.
Can you explain to me what specifically would make "denying marriage licences to infertile couples" unconstitutional, while somehow "denying marriage licences to first cousins" isn't?
quote:No such law would fail to be struck down as unconstitutional by any SCOTUS in living memory.
When has SCOTUS *ever* made a decision which would be opposed by both major political parties?
So, yeah, they wouldn't ever allow as many state rights as the Constitution demands, because both major political parties in the U.S. would abhor that.
But something isn't automatically made right simply because both Democrats and Republicans agree to it, nor is it automatically made wrong because they both oppose it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Can you explain to me what specifically would make "denying marriage licences to infertile couples" unconstitutional, while somehow "denying marriage licences to first cousins" isn't?
Like, you want an actual legal explanation of why one is a matter under the law, and the other is not? Because there is one.
Infertile couples, let's say, the fact of one's infertility, is a status which receives equal protection under the law. So you can't make laws regarding infertile people in general, except where you specifically elucidate their special protections under the law.
Whereas, laws regarding marriages to relatives fall outside of equal protection statutes: that is, the laws in question do not pertain to classes of people in any applicable sense: there is no segment of society that are cousins, and even though there are people who are and aren't cousins, the law does not pertain to the legal protection of a class of people, but to an act. It is within the accepted power of the state, in broad terms, to legislate acts such as marriage according to social standards: Ie: legal age of marriageability, laws against incestuous marriage, etc. These laws do not subject any class to unequal protection.
So it is not unconstitutional, at least under the equal protection statute, to make marriage of cousins illegal, because it is a law which can be applied to everyone, with equal effect. The argument about gay marriage laws, particularly DOMA, is that they *cannot* be applied equally, because gays are in fact a class of people, who do not make the choice, therefore the law applies unfairly to them, and not only to an act in general. This is similar to anti-miscegenation laws which have been repealed: the recognition of a protected class, that is a class of people recognized by law and therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law, cannot be given an institution which is separate but equal. There can be no "black marriage" and "white marriage," there can be only marriage. Now we are seeing the legal framework falling into place for the recognition of gays as a protected class (don't be alarmed: as a white male, I am also a protected class- protected classes are numerous and plural), and therefore an attempt to establish a separate class of legal protections for them is unconstitutional- their legal needs and rights must be met within the legal framework applied to all citizens. Ie: Gay marriage must be the same thing as straight marriage.
I have a feeling you were being facetious in asking, but there is an actual legitimate answer the question, and you've just been given it. I hope you don't ignore it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
The question was legitimate, and thanks for the answer; though I'm not certain that your interpretation of the US constitution is correct, I don't proclaim myself a scholar in this respect.
I'll just add as a note that this all seems too crazy arbitrary for me. e.g. that gays "do not make the choice" (to be gay) is supposedly relevant? Does that mean that if in the future, there were different pills that people could take to make them straight, gay or bisexual, that would by itself potentially change the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage?
I suppose that explains all the fuss Americans make about whether gay people "choose" to be gay or not, which has always been an utterly uninteresting question to me as I never saw any reason to care.
Any way this is rather an academic question for me -- I support same-sex marriage not because of constitutional principles but because I believe it'll be good for society. I likewise would support federalism in this (and many other issues) not because of constitutional principles, but because I believe federalism is a good policy. If I'm wrong on what the US Constitution says, fine, I'd be all in favour of it being rewritten. :-)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: I'll just add as a note that this all seems too crazy arbitrary for me. e.g. that gays "do not make the choice" (to be gay) is supposedly relevant? Does that mean that if in the future, there were different pills that people could take to make them straight, gay or bisexual, that would by itself potentially change the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage?
No, in the same sense that the ability to change someone's skin color could endanger the equal protection of black people.
The hubub about being gay being natural is that homosexuality as a legally recognized status is important to the application of the law, particularly the equal protection clause (14th Amendment).
If you legally recognize a person as a part of a protected class (gender, race, age, etc), then you must also strike down any law that attempts to limit their equal access to federal institutions, including marriage.
quote: Any way this is rather an academic question for me -- I support same-sex marriage not because of constitutional principles but because I believe it'll be good for society.
I would interject that the purpose of the constitution is to establish a legal framework for the good of society, and the proper, effective functioning of the state, and to curtail attempts by the few, or the many, to impinge upon human dignity. In that respect, you ought to consider the constitutional principles involved as being important.
We do not simply do what would be good. We must determine how and why what we do is *right*.
quote: I likewise would support federalism in this (and many other issues) not because of constitutional principles, but because I believe federalism is a good policy. If I'm wrong on what the US Constitution says, fine, I'd be all in favour of it being rewritten. :-)
I would suggest that you do some more studying. That is all that I will suggest.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Aris, here is a list of past court decisions in which the Supreme Court has affirmed that marriage is a right. Reading the opinions might provide more insight into why new restrictions on marriage (e.g. based on age) might be unconstitutional.
Also note that strict scrutiny would need to demonstrate a compelling government interest that is furthered by the discrimination, rather than the lack of furthering a government interest by extending access to a legal institution to additional people. Even if marriage is centrally about procreation, then, there'd have to be a compelling government interest served by excluding people from it (since it has been found to be a right guaranteed by the constitution).
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I see that such affirmations would also make it impossible for a state to decide that it wouldn't recognize *any* marriages. I find this unfortunate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
aris, here's a good example of a question to ask of the people trying to uphold prop 8, or the right of states to do this.
i'll ask you.
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: aris, here's a good example of a question to ask of the people trying to uphold prop 8, or the right of states to do this.
i'll ask you.
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
Nothing that currently crosses my mind. But, after all, I don't think there exists much of a rational basis for the states to deny gay couples marriage rights either (hence my support for SSM). But that's *my* opinion, in a democracy it's the public's opinion that should matter; with the exception of the guarantees of free speech, due process, etc, which are necessary for a free society and the preservation of freedom and democracy altogether.
And assuming one allows federalism as a concept at *all*, family law would seem to me an issue that (unlike e.g. foreign policy or common defense) would properly belong at the state level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And assuming one allows federalism as a concept at *all*, family law would seem to me an issue that (unlike e.g. foreign policy or common defense) would properly belong at the state level.
If that were true, and we're voiding strict scrutiny classes, that means it is "properly at the state level" to determine whether to keep anti-miscegenation laws or to deny adoption rights to colored folk, as states have done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Aris what about test tube babies or other genetic fiddling to create an embryo that can be carried by lesbian couples? Or Male couples to use a proxy womb?
Do you also believe it is within states rights to prevent black people from voting? If not, what's the difference?
Personally I am in favor of States not being able to easily trample human dignity at its legislative whim.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: This article from the SCOTUS blog outlines what I was concerned with.
If DOMA is unconstitutional because it's the federal government using a power reserved for the states, then it becomes hard to argue that California does not have the right to pass Prop 8.
That's silly, frankly. The grounds for overturning Prop 8 are not related to State's Rights. There is very clear precident for the Scotus overturning a state constitution. It's not legislating to overturn a State's constitution, it's a legal decision. It's erasing legislation- something the court is within its power to do on constitutional grounds.
There is a classic hierarchy of rights involved here: individual rights trump those of the states. The federal government only has the power to interfere with the laws of a state (such as the right to change its constitution in a certain way), if those laws attempt to a) interfere with the federal government's constitutional powers, or b) interfere with the constitutional rights of individuals.
This has broad and narrow meanings. In broad terms it means that Federal law trumps state law in most cases, which follows mainly from the federal government's right to enact "appropriate legislation." In narrow terms, it means that the states cannot specifically legislate against those powers of the federal government which are recognized as paramount, nor against the rights of individuals as protected in the constitution.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Particularly liked this MP's speech during the debate.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So if Bob and Bill go to New Zealand and get married, does it have to be recognized by the US as a legal marriage? Would not recognizing it violate some treaties? If Linda and Lois are from New Zealand and get married, but come to the US to work, would they have to be recognized?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So if Bob and Bill go to New Zealand and get married, does it have to be recognized by the US as a legal marriage? Would not recognizing it violate some treaties? If Linda and Lois are from New Zealand and get married, but come to the US to work, would they have to be recognized?
Oh the questions...
When we have nationwide same-sex marriage, these issues won't be issues (at least in the U.S.). Let's cross our fingers SCOTUS wipes all gay marriage bans. If they don't, if they kill DOMA but leave marriage decisions to individual states, as several legal pundits expect, then questions like Darth Mauve's will exponentiate.
Imagine: a married same-sex couple in a state where it is legal is receiving federal marriage benefits, then their employment requires a move to a state where it's not legal so they suddenly become unmarried in their new home *and* lose their federal marriage benefits. Another scenario: Ani, an Armenian studying at grad school in WA state, where she meets and marries Suzy. Because they are legally married, Ani is now free to remain in the U.S. Later Suzy decides to take over the family business in GA, but after they move Ani get's deported since in GA they are no longer officially married.
It's gonna be a real mess.
[ April 18, 2013, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So if Bob and Bill go to New Zealand and get married, does it have to be recognized by the US as a legal marriage? Would not recognizing it violate some treaties? If Linda and Lois are from New Zealand and get married, but come to the US to work, would they have to be recognized?
Oh the questions...
When we have nationwide same-sex marriage, these issues won't be issues (at least in the U.S.). Let's cross our fingers SCOTUS wipes all gay marriage bans. If they don't, if they kill DOMA but leave marriage decisions to individual states, as several legal pundits expect, then questions like Darth Mauve's will exponentiate.
Imagine: a married same-sex couple in a state where it is legal is receiving federal marriage benefits, then their employment requires a move to a state where it's not legal so they suddenly become unmarried in their new home *and* lose their federal marriage benefits. Another scenario: Ani, an Armenian studying at grad school in WA state, where she meets and marries Suzy. Because they are legally married, Ani is now free to remain in the U.S. Later Suzy decides to take over the family business in GA, but after they move Ani get's deported since in GA they are no longer officially married.
It's gonna be a real mess.
So I'm probably remembering something wrong but I was under the impression that a marriage say from California would have to be recognized in any other state. I can't remember any specifics unfortunately or even from where I heard it. (My high school gov't debate class seems to be the source but I can't remember for sure). Is there anyone who could shed light on that?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
No state has to recognize another state's marriages. One would think under Full Faith and Credit all states would recognize marriage from every other state. Alas. When Hawaii first intimated it might approve gay marriage in the 90's, DOMA was enacted.
Section 2 of DOMA reads:
quote:Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 2 is not currently being challenged at SCOTUS.
Section 3 is before the Court now, and it seems likely the Justices will strike that provision down.
quote:Section 3. Definition of marriage In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Thanks Anthonie.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
As far as Ani and Suzy's example, since deportation is under the auspices of the INS, which is a Federal agency, the state of Georgia would not have any say in the matter. If Windsor v. U.S. results in Section 3 being struck down, Ani should have no fear of deportation, regardless of what state she and Suzy reside in, yes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Officials of the Boy Scouts of America said Friday that they propose ending their ban on openly gay scouts but continuing to bar gay adults from serving as leaders. The decision, which follows years of heated controversy within the organization and growing outside criticism, must be approved by the roughly 1,400 voting members of the Scouts’ National Council at a meeting in Texas the week of May 20.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I had a question about the Gay Scout thing.
Criminals are not allowed to be Scouts. If you go to jail, you are kicked out.
When you turn 18, you leave scouting (accept for the older "Adventure Scouts" which is not a large group.)
It is illegal for you to have sex before age 18, no matter what gender you partner with.
So how can you ever have a Gay scout? You can have a scout with a sexual preference for males, but if they have not consummated that preference, they have not really been gay.
On the other hand the only way to prove you are a straight scout is to have sex with a female, and that is breaking the law so you would get kicked out.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to have a ban on any sex for boy scouts?
Similarly, the fear they have that gay leaders would "take advantage" of the scouts in their protection. Well, I don't care if you are a man or a woman, you break the law if you have sex with children under 18, and you do go to jail. As such, all sex with scouts is the law, gay-straight-or anything in between.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is illegal to have sex before 18? Really?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If you haven't had sex you can't be gay?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[46]
age of consent 16 (30): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming
age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania[47]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would make people who are having sex with someone under the age of consent criminals. Not the underage person.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That would make people who are having sex with someone under the age of consent criminals. Not the underage person.
So if they're having sex with a peer, they're both criminals.
And if they have sex with someone who is not below the age of consent, then they are no longer a criminal, but they are now the victim of a crime. And their partner is a criminal.
There's no way for them to (legally) just plain have sex and not have it be a catastrophe.
Many states have clauses that mitigate this problem, but I don't think they all do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I admit I got a little misty listening to it. I love stuff like this.
Also, the crowd harmonized very well for being a random collection of onlookers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, the age of consent laws are more complicated than that. Being the victim of a crime would not preclude boy scout membership.
It is possible that Darth_Mauve was making a joke and I am ruining the funny.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, the age of consent laws are more complicated than that. Being the victim of a crime would not preclude boy scout membership.
Oh, yeah, agreed. Sorry, I think I may have missed some of the context, actually. I wasn't saying it would preclude boy scout membership, so much as just saying it's still a messed up situation under the law.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is possible that Darth_Mauve was making a joke and I am ruining the funny.
I don't think it ruins it! Critical analysis is fun on its own merits! Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
They've tried to make sex offenders out of teenage girls who sent naked pictures to their boyfriends. A few years ago a DA in Arizona tried his hardest to get a teenage boy registered as a sex offender for showing his teenage buddy a Playboy. I have little faith in states and DA's to be logical or reasonable when it comes to such things.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I had a question about the Gay Scout thing. ... So how can you ever have a Gay scout? You can have a scout with a sexual preference for males, but if they have not consummated that preference, they have not really been gay. ... On the other hand the only way to prove you are a straight scout is to have sex with a female, and that is breaking the law so you would get kicked out.
So someone is not gay or straight until they have sex.
I like that method of definition. Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: As far as Ani and Suzy's example, since deportation is under the auspices of the INS, which is a Federal agency, the state of Georgia would not have any say in the matter. If Windsor v. U.S. results in Section 3 being struck down, Ani should have no fear of deportation, regardless of what state she and Suzy reside in, yes?
I was assuming that if a person is granted residency because they are married to a U.S. citizen, and then suddenly they became unmarried because they move to a new state, and if the federal government is obliged to follow state definitions of marriage, then INS would have to treat the person as an illegal alien.
I am very likely wrong. I don't know how resident status is affected for residents legalized by marriage who have their marriages annulled. That is what the Suzy and Ani case most resembles.
If we have a state-by-state patchwork of marriage definitions, one of the next big questions/cases will be suits brought by 'civil-union-ed' couples who live is states where that's all that's available suing for federal marriage benefits. Why should they be treated differently just because their state calls their legal union by a lesser name?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I admit I got a little misty listening to it. I love stuff like this.
Also, the crowd harmonized very well for being a random collection of onlookers.
That was quite moving. Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Two more victories:
1 - Gay marriage legalized in France on Tuesday, Apr 23!
2 - Gay marriage passes Senate in Rhode Island April 24, which for all intents and purposes legalizes gay marriage in the state! (It already passed the House in January, but after Senate passage it heads back to the House for a procedural approval vote. Governor Chafee vowed to sign it long ago.) That makes RI the 10th state to approve same sex marriage.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Tuesday, the Legislature in Biden’s home state, Delaware, voted to become the 11th such state, part of a rapid shift on the issue that is making same-sex marriage the norm in liberal parts of the country. The Delaware Senate approved the marriage bill, 12-9, sending it to Gov. Jack Markell, who has championed the measure.
Markell signed the bill a half hour after it passed the Senate.
Rhode Island's bill allowing same-sex marriage became official last week.
The Minnesota House votes on it this Thursday. Keep your fingers crossed that they make it a full dozen states with marriage equality!
States with same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York, Maine, Washington, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware. (Also D.C.)
Coming up next, and hopefully soon, (with or without the help of SCOTUS): Minnesota(?), Illinois, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Oregon, New Mexico(?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
All of these filthy democratically elected government stepping into 'the culture war'!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
11 states now. And no DOMA is still on the books? Good to know the federal government doesn't want to recognize contracts legally binding in more than 20% of the states.
What percent of the population now lives in a state where same sex marriage is legal?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Figured it out myself, 16%.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Figured it out myself, 16%.
Thanks!
Minnesota: approx 1.7% of U.S. population Illinois: approx 4.1%
If they both go this legislative session, we will be pushing 22%.
ETA: When Prop 8 is invalidated or repealed, that adds approx 12.1% more of the population, which will put us over a third.
[ May 08, 2013, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Where are the republicans fighting for state rights on DOMA? Seems perfect, a democrat even signed it into law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Minnesota passes marriage equality bill. Governor to sign tomorrow.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Minnesota passes marriage equality bill. Governor to sign tomorrow.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
New Jersey's population is 2.8% of the country... and the NJ assembly passed gay marriage, but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
Polls have 62% of the state in support, and a likely upcoming referendum should add NJ to the list.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Especially since he can't use that "will of the people" excuse.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: New Jersey's population is 2.8% of the country... and the NJ assembly passed gay marriage, but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
Polls have 62% of the state in support, and a likely upcoming referendum should add NJ to the list.
Here's a likely scenario for NJ: If section 3 of DOMA is thrown out by the Supremes, then federal marriage benefits will be available to all legal state marriages. Since it is unlikely a Republican House (which will be that way for at least a decade with the last census redistricting) will ever pass legislation extending federal benefits to couples with civil unions, then states with only civil unions will have extra pressure to extend full marriage status in order for couples to receive federal benefits.
Under those circumstances, I can totally imagine lawmakers in NJ finding the will to override Christie's veto, which they still have the rest of the year to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't see Christie having an 'evolution' of his own on the question prior to the general, actually. Probably timed based on what the primary field looks like and how badly Clinton is dinger up.
ETA: Rather, I do see that. Much will depend on for example what minority turn out projections are the closer we get, and how well Republicans can avoid making themselves the misogyny party in the general. Really my money right now is on the question hinging on how much muscle the far right base can exert, and in which direction.
[ May 16, 2013, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A misleading headline that paints over some of the real (if the divorcee's account is accurate) nastiness involved here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Biggest mistake of his career, quite possibly. Showed zero cajones- especially since i'm pretty sure Christy is pro-rights when you get right down to it.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
They went kind of halfway in a way which was guaranteed to satisfy nobody and piss off pretty much everybody.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just the tip!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Just the tip!
Today was the last day of the 2013 legislative session.
ETA: On a positive note, here is a touching song written by a 72 year old grandmother from Tennessee for her lesbian niece's wedding.
[ May 31, 2013, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah bro see title
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Also, Proposition 8 is dead forever btw so gay marriage is back in California whooooooo
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Excuse me while I marry this horse, this stuffed animal and the colour blue and several songs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anyway there's a remaining section (no. 2) but if Scalia's garbling bullcrap is any indication, this has seeded through precedent the tools to challenge and destroy it as well.
Anyway more ruling quotes:
quote:There is a "careful consideration" standard: In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.
quote:The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Also, Proposition 8 is dead forever btw so gay marriage is back in California whooooooo
It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.
The court struck it down based on who represented the case, not on whether or not the actual bill was Constitutional. I thought it was an absolutely stupid precedent to set, and frankly I agree with the dissent of Kennedy.
Interestingly, Sotomayor dissented on the prop 8 decision. I'd be pretty interested to hear her reasoning on opposing it.
The DOMA decision was the right one to make. If the state allows gay marriage, the federal government should extend those benefits to those people as well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.
You are incorrect. People that were already married were permitted to stay married, but no new marriages were legal. A state official would not have the power to "ignore it" and marry a gay couple and if they did it would not be a legal marriage.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.
You are incorrect. People that were already married were permitted to stay married, but no new marriages were legal. A state official would not have the power to "ignore it" and marry a gay couple and if they did it would not be a legal marriage.
Oh ok. I could have sworn I read some articles of politicians, one being the mayor of San Francisco, that said he didn't care and that he was going to let them continue.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in the government didn't chose to ignore to uphold a law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually don't care for the Prop 8 ruling.
I still have to read the actual decision, but based on what I've read, I approve of the outcome, but not the method used to get it.
It sets a terrible, dangerous precedent, one that I'm glad SCOTUS chose not to further enforce in the DOMA case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have been thinking a lot about this and decided to give some historical perspective.
When I was born, sodomy was a felony in every state but Illinois.
The Stonewall riots were when I was five.
When I graduated from college, you could still be arrested and jailed for homosexual activities in most states.
Twenty years ago, DADT was an improvement.
Lawrence v Texas was only 10 years ago.
It has been too long and justice delayed has been justice denied for too many. And there is a lot of work to do yet. It is good, though, to be able to see that arc bending.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually don't care for the Prop 8 ruling.
I still have to read the actual decision, but based on what I've read, I approve of the outcome, but not the method used to get it.
It sets a terrible, dangerous precedent, one that I'm glad SCOTUS chose not to further enforce in the DOMA case.
I'm glad I am not the only one.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
More seriously, though, the change has been incredible. When I signed my contract, a little less than 4 years ago, I had to sign a paper stating I wasn't gay, and that I agreed not to partake in any homosexual activities. You could be harassed, bullied, and kicked out of the Marine Corps without an honorable discharge for so much as kissing another man.
Now, you can be openly gay. Several of the men I work with have boyfriends that they bring to our Battalion family days, and as of this week, a Lieutenant in our battalion can now finally file for housing with her wife, can put their children through the school on base, and claim her as the recipient for our SGLI life insurance. A lot of the same guys who were openly homophobic and said they would never work with "fags" are now accepting and even defensive of their gay brothers and sisters in arms. It's been an incredible 4 years.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have been thinking a lot about this and decided to give some historical perspective.
When I was born, sodomy was a felony in every state but Illinois.
The Stonewall riots were when I was five.
When I graduated from college, you could still be arrested and jailed for homosexual activities in most states.
Twenty years ago, DADT was an improvement.
Lawrence v Texas was only 10 years ago.
It has been too long and justice delayed has been justice denied for too many. And there is a lot of work to do yet. It is good, though, to be able to see that arc bending.
I agree, it did take too long.
Look at it another way, though: for such a massive social change, it's gone impressively quickly. Compared to the also ongoing battle against racism, the push for tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals has been a blink of the historical eye.
The many comparisons to be drawn between the two struggles have clearly helped the gay movement. This is only anecdotal, but the argument that discrimination against gay people and discrimination against racial minorities are fundamentally analogous is the argument I've never really heard a good response for. When I've argued with anti-SSM people, they'll either flat out deny it without really being able to articulate why, or they sort of just get uncomfortable and the conversation drags to a stop. I'm also able to use the fact that I'm mixed race to drive home the parallels between anti-SSM laws and anti-miscegenation laws. Whether or not it's changed minds, I can't say, but I do think people worry that down the road they'll come to be seen by society the way racists are viewed today.
Basically, within a couple of generations, it seems to me that society has looked at recent history and tried, albeit imperfectly, to apply the lessons learned to our current situation. And as Gandalf* says, that is an encouraging thought.
*as played by Sir Ian Mckellan. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Yeah, probably.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.
I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.
I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Depends on how you define an issue. With the extreme generational shifts happening in America, I could see it going away as a national issue within a generation or two. As today's 40 somethings die off in 50 years, I think it will be a quiet issue for small pockets of the country.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.
I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Why, exactly? There are plenty of things that people used to be extremely prejudiced against that are complete nonissues now, or even seem downright silly. Acting being a highly disreputable career, for example, or basing your judgement of someone (including whether or not you would hire/befriend/speak to said person) based on how respectable their family is, or women being thought of as whores for wearing makeup.
The reason I believe racism will persist is because race is genetic, and family is such a huge part of who you are and what culture you belong to. The injustices and inequality created by racism have lingered and been propogated from generation to generation because of the existence of ghettos, a disparity between educational standards and living conditions in white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, disparity in wealth and different cultural values in general. Gays, otoh, come from any race, any religious background, any socioeconomic class. They have no inhereted culture, no ghetto, no financial or educational barriers to overcome. There's no reason to think homophobia will continue to be an issuue in the US for more than 20 or 30 years. Of course there will still be people who are homophobes, just like there are people (for likewise religious reasons) who still think dancing and rock music are wrong. But it won't be an issue for hs as a society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is stupid and probably deserves a direct rebuttal
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't say I recall Card's stance on gay-friendly boycotts in particular or political boycotts in general, whether of businesses or media, so I can't say how stupid this actually is. It is amusing, though, after all these years to see him so neatly fold in pursuit of a bottom line. Or I wonder if this is pressured?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I've always kinda been on the fence about his stance on gays. Not that I agreed with him in the slightest, far from it. Just that I could kinda see some of his points even if I disagreed and far be it for me to deny anyone their opinion. But this line:
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
Come on dude, you're bigger than that. Begging for tolerance from a group that has NEVER tried to deny ANY freedoms from you yet you routinely spoke out against. Get over it and grow up already.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them...
By "show tolerance," does he mean "go to the movies of?" What other sort of tolerance is in play here?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm pretty sure tolerance is allowing your enemies to say what they want and make whatever movies they want.
Tolerance doesn't compel you to see their movies and line their pockets.
Tolerance also isn't the same thing as acceptance, and I think he'd do well to look up both words.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm really just enjoying the mental image of OSC being berated by those Hollywood producers he hates so much. This comment is only going to add fuel to the boycott-fires.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them...
By "show tolerance," does he mean "go to the movies of?" What other sort of tolerance is in play here?
That's what it sounded like to me. I've seen a few calls for a boycott.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm pretty sure tolerance is allowing your enemies to say what they want and make whatever movies they want.
Tolerance doesn't compel you to see their movies and line their pockets.
Tolerance also isn't the same thing as acceptance, and I think he'd do well to look up both words.
Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
Come on dude, you're bigger than that. Begging for tolerance from a group that has NEVER tried to deny ANY freedoms from you yet you routinely spoke out against. Get over it and grow up already.
I have yet to see anything that suggests that he is, in fact, bigger than what he just presented to us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's fair.
Personally I don't like everything my favorite artists and authors do, and I've yet to proactively boycott one, nor will I start now.
But I think people are well within their rights to do so if they want to without getting a lecture on it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as in he will stick to the idea he just presented there, and would not, upon review, say, add anything like an apology to gays to it
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think he thinks he has anything to apologize for.
I think he thinks of himself like the Confederacy. Losing didn't discredit the idea, it just meant they lost.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's fair.
Personally I don't like everything my favorite artists and authors do, and I've yet to proactively boycott one, nor will I start now.
But I think people are well within their rights to do so if they want to without getting a lecture on it.
Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Not saying you fit that description at all Lyrhawn.
Look, I don't think the statement is magnanimous enough, but for God's sake (no pun intended) the man belongs to a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. As in it leads people ultimately to unhappiness, contributes to societal ruin, and estranges them from their creator who loves them.
He points out Ender's Game doesn't deal with the issue he is being castigated over, much like we would tell somebody who said, "I won't watch that movie, it was written by a gay man with an anti-marriage agenda" that they need to judge the movie on its merits and message." And further acknowledges that he has lost the public debate, so could everybody just stop hounding the movie.
But nobody sees the irony behind "I don't tolerate intolerance." Nobody sees just how ugly mocking is. Because it's being directed at somebody we don't sympathize with. It's easy to feel for the terrified boy in the locker room being called a "fag" by a bunch of school bullies. But it's awful hard to summon any sympathy for the old man with some unpopular opinions who earnestly believes he is doing what is right, even if it means being disfellowshipped by a huge segment of society.
No, it's much better we send a message that those who believe gay marriage is bad for society that they don't belong in that society, and their opinions should get them fired from their jobs and they should be boycotted. All while telling ourselves "What did gay people ever do to them?!" and, "I know my Bible, and it tells them to judge not." Look in the freaking mirror.
Meanwhile let's also ensure people use the correct terminology to address gay people, but for those who aren't in line, just call them all homophobes and haters, because clearly if you think something is bad for society you must also hate those who support it. That's why Democrats are also called Republican Haters regularly.
I'm angry, it's late. I just resent that those who support same-sex marriage, such as myself are supposed to embody love. Just as I believe the Mormons who oppose it must also do so with the same motivation. Yet I see both sides using the same disgusting principles to try to win the debate. I don't want to belong to either.
[ July 10, 2013, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's some fairness to that, BlackBlade, but I would point out that Card seriously publicized his opposition and his alignment with one of the most well known opposition groups on SSM in the country. So potential media customers don't need to apply much scrutiny at all, as a consequence of his past efforts.
All of that said, though, as the wall continues to be weakened and to crumble, I'm increasingly willing to be less adversarial on the issue, however fair it might be (and frankly, in Card's case, it seems to me his complaint is remarkably petty, hypocritical, and simply funny).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
three parts.
one. is someone who is not going to go see ender's game because osc is a homophobe being an 'inconsistent prat'
two,
quote: for God's sake (no pun intended) the man belongs to a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. As in it leads people ultimately to unhappiness, contributes to societal ruin, and estranges them from their creator who loves them.
is there any degree to which this is supposed to be accepted as an excuse rather than an explanation for his behavior, any non-zero degree to which it makes his actions better to those that are harmed by them? what would you say to someone who is of the opinion that this offers no indemnification to his actions, but instead only extends like condemnation of the religion?
and three,
quote:But it's awful hard to summon any sympathy for the old man with some unpopular opinions who earnestly believes he is doing what is right, even if it means being disfellowshipped by a huge segment of society.
yes it is easier to summon sympathy for a victim of homophobia who is suffering harm than it is to summon sympathy for someone who is actively perpetuating homophobic discrimination that causes harm — quelle surprise, honestly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess such a hypothetical person would only be inconsistent if they went to see another movie or concert or something by an artists who is also on the board of the National Association of Marriage, etc. That's a pretty narrow band, because OSC isn't directly comparable to EVERY artist who does something objectionable. It's all on a huge sliding scale, and it cuts across multiple issues with multiple degrees of severity, and we all have our own criteria for how we measure those criteria and what not. It's not simple.
I pretty much agree with Rakeesh.
But I also think that article was just as petty as OSC. He's lost the culture war, he's part of an aging generation who see their childhood idyllic version of America slipping away, and despite his politics, I personally believe him to be an earnestly nice guy. Pointing a finger at him and laughing over this strikes me as poor sportsmanship. I can muster up some sympathy for that...but not as much as I'd have for someone who honestly had a change of heart regarding the harm he and his organization (the NOM, not Mormons) have done to so many people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:is someone who is not going to go see ender's game because osc is a homophobe being an 'inconsistent prat'
I do not believe Mr. Card is a homophobe. We've covered that ground before. As to your question, no not going to see the movie because you believe Mr. Card is a homophobe does not in of itself make you an inconsistent prat.
When you see your next movie or refrain from doing so the question is begged anew.
quote:is there any degree to which this is supposed to be accepted as an excuse rather than an explanation for his behavior, any non-zero degree to which it makes his actions better to those that are harmed by them? what would you say to someone who is of the opinion that this offers no indemnification to his actions, but instead only extends like condemnation of the religion?
Yes. It's called understanding. If you can't understand somebody's motivations, you can't pass fair judgement as to what their actions say about them as a person. Would you judge Mr. Card the same way as somebody who says honestly, "I can't stand the thought of somebody actually wanting something up their anus, it's disgusting, all gays should be locked up for being insane and disgusting."?
As to your other question, I've heard that argument posed many times. It would depend on the person, and their opinions regarding religion in of itself.
quote:yes it is easier to summon sympathy for a victim of homophobia who is suffering harm than it is to summon sympathy for someone who is actively perpetuating homophobic discrimination that causes harm — quelle surprise, honestly.
Hey thanks for phrasing things so patently one-sidedly it makes any other conclusions other than yours absurd!
Can you honestly not see any vitriol or schadenfreude on our side of the same-sex marriage debate? No animosity, hatred, apathy? I know you don't want it to be part of the discourse, but it's there.
We do no favors by acting like as long as it goes towards a greater good, these indiscretions will matter not at all. Or that the oppressors have had it their way for centuries, a few years of turnabout seems fair.
I have faith, and I mean that literally in that I believe it to be true but cannot prove it, that Mr. Card could see reason on this subject. But it would only be through patience, forgiveness, and love. I firmly believe that if you were to try to shame him, or anything along those lines, it would not change his opinions one bit, only reinforce them.
I've seen him wall up against Mormons who thought he was a liberal apostate, and against same-sex advocates who think he should be hated by everybody.
If your objective is to change his mind, insulting him will not accomplish that. So you have to decide what your motivations are in criticizing him. If it's to persuade others to get off the fence, or shore up support, maybe. But I doubt that is an affective strategy. People will often laugh at other's discomfiture without any incentive or call to do so. I don't believe in righteous mockery.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Is Card getting a cut of the profits from the movie, or did he get paid a flat fee? If it's a flat fee, I don't see why he should care that much about whether the movie is boycotted. A (hopefully) good film will have been made from his book, something he's been wanting for almost three decades now.
I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Card's an old man basing his opinions off of religious beliefs. I think the chances of him changing his beliefs are near non-existant.
I'm not inclined to try to change his mind anymore then I am to try and change the mind of a 70 year old Southern racist. His generation will die off soon enough, and when it does, most of the anti homosexual rhetoric (or, at least, most of the people who believe it) will be gone.
Until then, forcefully and repeatedly showing how silly his opinions are, combined with righteous mockery, will help make sure as few as possible of the next generation takes up his noxious beliefs.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/07/09/tolerance-for-intolerance-boycotting-enders-game/
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
Bah.
This attitude bugs me. If you honestly believe in boycotting, then don't watch it. But don't STEAL it because you want to not contribute but still watch it. There's nothing ethical about that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
Just about every element in that URL makes me not want to read it.
2013/07/09 is probably the only neutral part.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Well, you can read it or not read it, Blackblade. It doesn't make what the author says any less true.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
Just about every element in that URL makes me not want to read it.
2013/07/09 is probably the only neutral part.
I object to the European style of date formatting! Neutral indeed!
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
Bah.
This attitude bugs me. If you honestly believe in boycotting, then don't watch it. But don't STEAL it because you want to not contribute but still watch it. There's nothing ethical about that.
I'm not always the most ethical person in the world when it comes to media piracy, true. I do buy almost everything that I download and actually keep, at least. But, you know, if I get to the end of my life and copying IP is worst thing I've done, I'll be pretty content.
I've wanted to see an Ender's Game movie almost as long as Card has. I'm going to see it. I'm also not going to voluntarily give Orson Scott Card money to help fund NOM and it's efforts. So if he's set to make money off of the ticket sales, I will indeed be buying a ticket to another movie and walking in to see Ender's Game.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I can put words to it, but to me, that lacks an important moral dimension.
You aren't sacrificing anything. A true boycott, a piece of civil disobedience, a contribution to how the system is supposed to work in this particular case requires some sacrifice on your part.
But having your cake and eating it too, in this instance, is lacking for me. Just cough up the $6 bucks and see it. Or don't, and don't see it. Of the half penny that will see its way back to Card, you can rest assure the five percent of that half penny he might hypothetically give to NOM will have the purchasing power of a clipped toe nail.
This strikes me more as false moral justification for getting out of paying for a ticket than it does a moral blow in favor of gay marriage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Well, you can read it or not read it, Blackblade. It doesn't make what the author says any less true.
Talk about compelling reasoning! But I'm curious: how much do you have to disapprove of someone before you tell yourself 'I get to steal from him'?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I can see your point, but to me participating in a boycott doesn't have to require I, myself, make some sort of sacrifice. It just has to deprive the person under boycott of something.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So if you were boycotting Apple, it would be okay to use an iPhone, so long as you didn't buy it?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Well, you can read it or not read it, Blackblade. It doesn't make what the author says any less true.
Talk about compelling reasoning! But I'm curious: how much do you have to disapprove of someone before you tell yourself 'I get to steal from him'?
I wasn't trying to compel or argue for anything there, Rakeesh. Blackblade said he's not inclined to read the post due to the URL. I said that's fine, but it doesn't really have much bearing on the truth of the author's words.
That depends on the type of theft, really. Stealing actual physical property? That would have to go far beyond mere disapproval. "Stealing" IP? Well, I'd say the basement level for that would be right around where Card's standing right now.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So if you were boycotting Apple, it would be okay to use an iPhone, so long as you didn't buy it?
That depends. Would I go out and steal an Iphone? No. Might I buy one used from someone? Sure. My money's not going to Apple, then. Maybe the person I buy it from then uses that money to buy another Apple product, but maybe he doesn't. That's up to him, not me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suppose we just disagree on that aspect of boycotting.
But to me, using a product from a company you're boycotting is right up there on the mountaintop of hypocrisy. Likewise, stealing a movie to watch that you've boycotted also comes across as hypocritical.
See, I don't understand why it's hypocrisy. I totally understand the viewpoint that what I plan to do is stealing. But why is it neccesary for the boycotter to make a sacrifice, or else it's hypocritical? If someone were to say "Hey, I disagree with your theft of IP, I'm going to boycott you," and I said that was wrong, that would be hypocrisy. The purpose of a boycott is to put pressure on or punish a person or group for something.
The Civil Rights boycotts weren't done because the people boycotting felt that by making a personal sacrifice that they would change things. They were done to punish and make a point to the people supporting and participating in segregation and racism.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
With boycotting, I think it's important to look over what you're actually accomplishing with that boycott. Some criteria I would use for myself:
1. If I were to spend money on the thing I am now boycotting, what impact would that money have? I.e, I think OSC was payed a fixed amount for the rights to the film (I may be wrong about that), but if he was getting a cut of my money, would he use it to hurt people? AFAIK, he spends most of his money ordering flavored water over the internet and buying gourmet vinegars and obscure household appliances and stuff like that. I don't know how much money he gives to anti-gay groups, as opposed to how much he gives to charity or otherwise uses for philanthropic efforts, but I would guess the amount actually going towards propagating hatred is none, or so negligible as to not make a difference.
The movie contains no ideas I find objectionable, and as far as I know the proceeds will go to nothing I find objectionable.
2. Is depriving myself of the opportunity to watch the movie (assuming I would see it except for the boycott), or stealing the movie and depriving everyone else who worked on the movie payment for their work, going to cause any good? By which I mean, if the movie is a financial flop instead of a success because of the boycott, will people suddenly stop agreeing with OSC? Will it change OSC's mind? Will it have any non-vindictive impact whatsoever?
3. Is the boycott going to have any impact other than on how people around me view me? For a while I boycotting clothing stores entirely (because of child labor) and chose to purchase all my clothes at Good Will (a US thrift store where all profits are given to charity). One thing that really annoyed me was when people with similar opinions who could afford to buy very expensive fair trade clothing would criticize me for wearing an Old Navy shirt I had bought second hand. It became apparent to me that for many of them, it was less about a personal conviction and more a desire to conform to certain standard. I wonder, of all the people boycotting Ender's Game, how many will:
1) Be doing so out of the (IMO mistaken) belief it will do some good. 2) Do it out of spite. (in order to hurt OSC in some small way) 3) Do it so they can claim they did it. (see above)
While I vehemently disagree with OSC on this subject (and even moreso his religion - his stance is pretty loving and understanding in comparison), I find all the calls for boycott to be misguided at best and downright stupid at worst. If you want to see the movie, then go see it. If you don't want to - or if you personally find the author's viewpoint too reprehensible to stomach - then by all means don't see it. But calling for a boycott or trying to pressure or shame other people into not seeing it is completely pointless. Stealing - or advocating the theft of - the movie is worse than pointless.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Well, of course me not paying to see the movie isn't really going to hurt Card. But in a case like this, one person is never going to do much of anything. It's about the collective effort and the message being sent out that his actions and words are vile. So, yeah, it's at least as much out of spite over Card hurting people, and I'm not ashamed to admit that. Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of Card's actions is that people are going to call for boycotts. I think we all know that the boycott on Card is going to have about as much affect as the boycott on Israel - nothing.
But that doesn't mean it's pointless. It's not pointless to publically and loudly say "Screw you, Card, what you do and say is wrong." It doesn't have to effect great change, and it's certainly only going to make Card feel like a martyr. But at least the message is put out there, at least the message is heard, (lots of reporting on the attempts at boycott, and why) and maybe third parties will have their own views changed or find out things that they didn't know before. How many times have we all heard someone say "Wow, Card has been one of my favorite authors since I was a child, but I never realized he believed and spread such horrible stuff."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But calling for a boycott or trying to pressure or shame other people into not seeing it is completely pointless.
Even though I could care less about a boycott in this case, this is as untrue as always.
anyway.
quote:Yes. It's called understanding. If you can't understand somebody's motivations, you can't pass fair judgement as to what their actions say about them as a person.
so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.
quote:Hey thanks for phrasing things so patently one-sidedly it makes any other conclusions other than yours absurd!
Sometimes it is best to directly point out the absurdity of absurd things. I could do it without a hint of sarcasm if desired, but the point would remain the exact same.
quote:I have faith, and I mean that literally in that I believe it to be true but cannot prove it, that Mr. Card could see reason on this subject. But it would only be through patience, forgiveness, and love. I firmly believe that if you were to try to shame him, or anything along those lines, it would not change his opinions one bit, only reinforce them.
So we have to be nice to him or else he'll be less likely to not hold terribly discriminatory beliefs that persecute and further greater persecution of a maligned and vulnerable class of people.
I am not compelled by the dilemma. It's not even tactically advisable in a utilitarian sense to play nice. The odds of someone like OSC changing their mind are slim, and you don't really help things much by making it a lot more comfortable to espouse their views without reprisal. You actually tend to make it a hell of a lot easier to keep those views, and transmit those ideals to new generations.
To get to the root of the issue: would you be compelled by the logic of this statement -
"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama -
quote:The Civil Rights boycotts weren't done because the people boycotting felt that by making a personal sacrifice that they would change things. They were done to punish and make a point to the people supporting and participating in segregation and racism.
Actually, in many cases the civil rights boycotts were indeed a major personal sacrifice. Women had to walk for miles to get to their places of employment when they boycotted buses. They organized a massive alternative transportation system to circumvent the bus system that was a major physical and financial imposition in order to make a point. They didn't just ride another bus or sneak on to the bus. They took pride in walking instead of riding, because pounding the pavement was a part of the suffering they were willing to endure.
Likewise, boycotting white stores in areas that didn't have black ones meant simply going without. It wasn't like they could boycott Racist USA and then hop down to Wal-Mart.
But you could argue "well sure, they had to suffer because they didn't have the option to boycott and not suffer," but that misses a huge moral element of the CRM. Sacrifice was inherently bound up in the Movement. If there had been a product that was synonymous with racism (well there were many, but let's use Racist Widget for this exercise), and everyone really wanted one but they couldn't support them for financial reasons, you wouldn't have caught ANYONE in the Movement using one, no matter how he might have come across it. It was about MORAL authority, SOUL power, etc. It meant total self-sacrifice, really embodying satyagraha. Why do you think they marched into fire hoses and police batons? For fun? To force the Birmingham PD to bankrupt itself through extreme water use? No, it was about moral authority and suffering.
Because using it, whether you paid for it or not, means you endorse it, it means you support it, it means you approve of it, it means you give it credence and credibility in the public sphere. It's not just about the money. At least, it's not to me, and it certainly wasn't to the Civil Rights Movement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the point of a boycott is to harm the subject of the boycott in such a way that it either puts them under or forces a concession. it is not to impose personal sacrifice on the people participating in the boycott. Personal sacrifice on the part of boycotters can actually be considered to be wholly divorced from the intent and utility of a boycott — there is no part of the point of a boycott which causes it to categorically require personal sacrifice to avoid the loss of any sort of authenticity or genuine stature. There is no requirement for it to come at any measure or standard of personal sacrifice.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Lyrhawn
Oh, no doubt civil rights era boycotters made many sacrifices. All I was trying to say is that their effects on the businesses so boycotted would not have been diminished if no sacrifices would have been necessary.
I may or may not see the movie (and to be honest, you've just about guilted me into just not seeing it, period), but participating in a boycott against it isn't about not seeing Ender's Game because it represents Card's anti-gay views. It's about spiting Card and sending a message that his anti-gay views and activism are not appreciated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the point of a boycott is to harm the subject of the boycott in such a way that it either puts them under or forces a concession. it is not to impose personal sacrifice on the people participating in the boycott. Personal sacrifice on the part of boycotters can actually be considered to be wholly divorced from the intent and utility of a boycott — there is no part of the point of a boycott which causes it to categorically require personal sacrifice to avoid the loss of any sort of authenticity or genuine stature. There is no requirement for it to come at any measure or standard of personal sacrifice.
I don't think self-sacrifice is automatically a component in all boycotts. If I choose to boycott Mobil Gas, I can't think of a situation that isn't horribly contrived where I'd really be put out, or where I could even force myself to be put out, by using a different gas station.
If I saw someone picketing an Apple store while talking on an iPhone or listening to an iPod, I would find them to be incredibly hypocritical, and they'd have to fight pretty hard to appear at all credible to me. It's very unlikely that I'd take them seriously.
Likewise, if someone told me they are boycotting the Ender's Game movie, but that they saw it and it's awesome, I would also find it difficult to take them seriously.
The most basic form of a boycott might be a refusal to purchase a good or service, but I think it also often involves refraining from using a product or consuming something as well. If the situation applies to both buying and using something without buying, and you choose to only do one while not inconveniencing yourself with the other, I won't take your commitment seriously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Lyrhawn
Oh, no doubt civil rights era boycotters made many sacrifices. All I was trying to say is that their effects on the businesses so boycotted would not have been diminished if no sacrifices would have been necessary.
I may or may not see the movie (and to be honest, you've just about guilted me into just not seeing it, period), but participating in a boycott against it isn't about not seeing Ender's Game because it represents Card's anti-gay views. It's about spiting Card and sending a message that his anti-gay views and activism are not appreciated.
I might agree with that. As I said above, there are many situations in which I think a sacrifice probably isn't necessary. It's not like I think a boycott requires you to go out of your way and contrive a situation where suffering is required.
But, a boycott to me means refraining not just from purchasing an item, but from any form of consumption or endorsement of that item, even if you don't have to pay for it. There are higher forms of protest than money alone, and if you really mean it, I think you're compelled and honor bound to go all the way and adjust your behavior to match your stated goals.
And I see the distinction you're making. I might even agree with it in part, except for the part where you have to sneak in to see it or illegally download it. But that's a different issue, perhaps.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I would like to throw a hypothetical out there just to get everyone's opinion on it. Would it be ok to "steal" a piece of intellectual property (book, movie, etc.) from an author or whatever you are boycotting for research purposes? For example:
You may recall during the 08 election that there was a lot of criticism of Obama from conservatives for his connection with Saul Alinsky and lots of talk about Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". I had no idea who Alinsky was and knew nothing about the book so I went out and bought it. I quite liked the book, thought it contained a lot of good information and saw nothing worthy of criticism of Obama in it.
But what if I was different? Let's say I or you or whoever is a hard core disciple of Rush and absolutely refuses to financially support a "radical leftist" like Alinsky but needs to be knowledgeable enough about him and his work to effectively debate against his views. I personally don't like the idea of denouncing something I know little about and reading the Cliff Notes so to speak doesn't cut it. Would it be acceptable to download it for this research?
Actually now that I think about it, simply checking it out from the library would probably be a much more ethical way of going about it without violating the "boycott" spirit.
So what do you all think? How would you go about researching something or someone you despise without supporting them financially?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You can't have it both ways, Obama. Either Card is never going to change his mind and efforts such as a boycott are doomed to irrelevancy (neither, in fact, is necessarily true at all), or he isn't and they aren't.
If the former, well then there's nothing of morality in this-you just don't like the guy and get some satisfaction out of stealing some change out of his pocket. (No scare quotes, that's what it is.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Actually now that I think about it, simply checking it out from the library would probably be a much more ethical way of going about it without violating the "boycott" spirit.
Which will be true of this movie eventually, or it would eventually be up on Netflix or something where the money is spread over a lot of titles, or a friend might buy the DVD, etc. You see how quickly this highlights what is really at work here: 'I really wanna see this movie, but I don't like that guy'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am with Lyrhawn on the boycott thing. I don't intend to see it. I don't particularly want it to fail, but for my own moral sake, won't support it. I would also point out that the point of boycotts is not just to change the behavior of whoever is being boycotted; it is to make a public statement about that behavior. The Montgomery bus boycott wasn't just about Montgomery.
Of course, if the movie doesn't do well, Mr. Card has a ready-made martyrdom excuse.
[ July 10, 2013, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't say I recall Card's stance on gay-friendly boycotts in particular or political boycotts in general, whether of businesses or media, so I can't say how stupid this actually is. It is amusing, though, after all these years to see him so neatly fold in pursuit of a bottom line. Or I wonder if this is pressured?
Card is, at the end of the day, a very avid consumer. I saw signs maybe 4-5 years ago that he had given up the artistic battle in general. Ender's Game getting made as a movie, his mostly abandoning his fight against the world everyone in it, etc. He's mostly just tired of it, I think, and now realizes he stands to make lots of money, maybe, if he falls in line. Who wouldn't, really?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam:
quote:so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.
Come on dude. I say you have to understand somebody's motivations, and your response is I must also be arguing everybody has good motivations?
And yes, people pass poor judgement on people's actions all the time. "This PRISM thing stops brown people from blowing us up, it must be good!" "That Ender dude just committed genocide of an entire alien species, he's a criminal!"
quote:Sometimes it is best to directly point out the absurdity of absurd things. I could do it without a hint of sarcasm if desired, but the point would remain the exact same.
You completely ignored the point of my statement. Of course it's easier to feel sympathy for the boy being bullied, there's nothing complicated about the situation.
But we are supposed to show empathy for all people, doesn't mean we just wash our hands of what they do and walk away. You try to understand why they act in the manner they do. My grandmother decided yesterday that she wasn't going to try to help my grandfather get out of bed anymore and into the living room during the day. He's a multiple stroke victim, and cannot walk without heavy assistance. He weighs at least 150 lbs more than my grandmother. She just can't do it anymore, and told him as much. His response was to wig out, I would not be surprised if he is currently giving her the cold shoulder and guilting her into changing her mind.
Pretty rotten thing to do. But my grandfather has had a several strokes. He's not in his right mind, his body is a prison, but he's terrified of dying and leaving my grandmother. He can't reason the way he used to, his control is limited. And being an invalid is a terrible thing to have to endure, for somebody whose self-worth is tied up in being physically able to act and do.
I guess I could be pissed off at my grandfather for selfishly trying to stay out of bed, even if it means a premature grave for my very healthy and active grandmother. But this is a guy who wouldn't hesitate to die for me if I was in danger. Who worked a long work week, and still managed to be a religious leader over thousands of people in what spare time he had.
He's made some bad choices, including diet and exercise that were involved in his current state. He does some rotten things while in this state in part because he lacks control, but in part because he's stubborn. It would be easy to just write him off as a stupid old cook who can be safely ignored. But that does him a gross indignity, especially in light of the fact he has probably spent more time in the service of others than he has in taking care of himself.
Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes.
I've never advocated doing "nothing" in response to his stated views. Not one time.
quote:"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
I agree with the first half, and I am not sure if the second is saying that to alienate another is to be defeated, or to be alienated is defeat.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm pretty sure tolerance is allowing your enemies to say what they want and make whatever movies they want.
Tolerance doesn't compel you to see their movies and line their pockets.
Tolerance also isn't the same thing as acceptance, and I think he'd do well to look up both words.
Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I am not boycotting the movie because while I disagree with his views, it's not something I feel so strongly about that I need to go out protesting and boycotting things. Plus I'm a huge fan of the book, why else would I be here?
But if I did feel the need to boycott, what other artists would I need to consider avoiding? I'm sure there are others but I can't think of any on my radar that have made their views so public.
Well, I did find this quote:
"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
Arnold Schwarzenegger
So I guess we are boycotting his movies too. No great loss there, though I did kinda like The Last Stand.
[ July 10, 2013, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Wingracer ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
I actually think that's a much lower bar than you might expect.
"I boycott artists who actively and publicly campaign against civil rights for a group of people."
I'd actually assume that the vast majority of folks planning to boycott OSC are not hypocrites in their selection of him as the target. It's pretty rare for an artist to be an active part of a controversial political campaign like that, even if you make the statement more general.
Are there any others that I'd need to include here? Many people (including myself) don't care much about the personal failings of the artists they support (arrests, infidelity, whatever). Tiger Woods' infidelity means nothing to me. It's the intentional intrusion into public politics that offends their sensibilities.
Not that I plan on boycotting the movie. I'll probably by my ticket in advance, in fact. I just don't know that any other artist I support is an active part of a campaign against something I care about. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend I am going to boycott. Which other artists do I need to also boycott?
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I can't think of any others that come close.
Edit: Jim Carrey perhaps, in his joining his patner's anti-vaccine hysterics. Though I think that's apples-to-oranges.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Rakeesh - You make a good point. Although as I said, I personally don't see theft of IP to be much of a moral burden at all, and if it's the worst thing I do in my life I'll be content. Your netflix and borrowing the DVD ideas have merit though, and between Lyrhawn's and your arguments, I've decided to just not see it until I can be sure Card doesn't receive money.
Xavier - Carrey didn't end up causing harm, I don't think (although not for lack of trying) but the potential was certainly there. If the vaccine hysterics had led to an actual breakdown of herd immunity, or had given a particular disease the leeway needed to mutate and make the vaccine less efficient, then they would have been responsible for suffering and death. Anti-vaccine activists don't get nearly the amount of contempt and disdain that they deserve. They are outright trying to endanger the community, purely because of their own personal misunderstanding of what vaccines are, what they do and do not do, and how they work.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Oh, I'm really sorry I try to live an ethical life. I've refused to buy anything from Card ever since I found out about his politics, which was maybe five years ago. I do the same for anything I know about. I try my hardest to make sure all of my purchases fit within my ethical framework.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Oh, I'm really sorry I try to live an ethical life. I've refused to buy anything from Card ever since I found out about his politics, which was maybe five years ago. I do the same for anything I know about. I try my hardest to make sure all of my purchases fit within my ethical framework.
TMan: I have nothing for respect for people who once they learn something, immediately change their behaviors to be in line with their established ethical framework. It's why I won't watch Roman Polanski films, even though I would love to see The Pianist. Were he to submit to the court system and pay his debt to society, I would reconsider.
But where do we draw lines on this course of action? "I join boycotts of films made by pro-choice advocates they kill babies; gun rights advocates, they allow mass shootings; welfare state opponents, they condone poverty.
Boycott films because they push a damaging agenda.
edit: Or because the proceeds of that film can be demonstrably shown to harm other human beings.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes..
Everybody is a complicated person and nobody can fully understand everybody, even people they form opinions about. You've simplified the people. Who want to boycott Ender's Game to mindless sheep, but I'm sure many, if not all, are generally loving individuals who have forgiven plenty from ohers, or have donated time or mone to charity, or are wonderful spouses or parents, etc.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even ignore. You're free to form anopinion based on one sentiment of theirs just as they are free to form an opinion based on OSC's stance towards SSM.
Itsnot right, maybe but I wouldn't say its wrong either.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
I actually think that's a much lower bar than you might expect.
"I boycott artists who actively and publicly campaign against civil rights for a group of people."
I'd actually assume that the vast majority of folks planning to boycott OSC are not hypocrites in their selection of him as the target. It's pretty rare for an artist to be an active part of a controversial political campaign like that, even if you make the statement more general.
Are there any others that I'd need to include here? Many people (including myself) don't care much about the personal failings of the artists they support (arrests, infidelity, whatever). Tiger Woods' infidelity means nothing to me. It's the intentional intrusion into public politics that offends their sensibilities.
Not that I plan on boycotting the movie. I'll probably by my ticket in advance, in fact. I just don't know that any other artist I support is an active part of a campaign against something I care about. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend I am going to boycott. Which other artists do I need to also boycott?
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I can't think of any others that come close.
Edit: Jim Carrey perhaps, in his joining his patner's anti-vaccine hysterics. Though I think that's apples-to-oranges.
I don't have an immediate response Xavier. I'm mulling over what you said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes..
Everybody is a complicated person and nobody can fully understand everybody, even people they form opinions about. You've simplified the people. Who want to boycott Ender's Game to mindless sheep, but I'm sure many, if not all, are generally loving individuals who have forgiven plenty from ohers, or have donated time or mone to charity, or are wonderful spouses or parents, etc.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even ignore. You're free to form anopinion based on one sentiment of theirs just as they are free to form an opinion based on OSC's stance towards SSM.
Itsnot right, maybe but I wouldn't say its wrong either.
People are complicated, but their opinions on things are not necessarily very complex or deep. They can be, and I think this is the case with Mr. Card, though him and I don't agree on this issue.
You are right I have not attempted to provide a complex and flattering picture of those who are calling for this boycott. From what I have been exposed to their reasoning doesn't go very deep beyond, "Here's a quote where Mr. Card says horrible things about gay people and their role in society, and thankfully this homophone is getting is just desserts now." But again, you are right in that I was not careful in how I portrayed proponents.
If you have links to a well-reasoned and thoughtful call for a boycott of Ender's Game, I'd be very much obliged.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There's the also the fact that Card has a megaphone for his ideas *because* of his success as an artist. He wouldn't be on the board of NOM and writing highly-circulated editorials if he wasn't a very well-known author. Enders game the novel was a necessary, if not sufficient, component of Card's public voice against SSM.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
What's wrong with a homophobe getting his just desserts, anyway?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.
Come on dude. I say you have to understand somebody's motivations, and your response is I must also be arguing everybody has good motivations?
No, I'm just extrapolating the realm of inviolable grounds your statements suggest people have against people who aren't going to 'understand them,' which becomes a really tired defense, real fast.
quote:But we are supposed to show empathy for all people,
this will be a point of massive contention. it also supposes that one of the ways we are 'supposed' to show empathy is to, effectively, be polite even in the face of discrimination, to the discriminators (as has been established in the framework of what you've been saying so far).
quote:doesn't mean we just wash our hands of what they do and walk away. You try to understand why they act in the manner they do.
Many people here have tried to and are in some way assured themselves of just that.
quote:He's made some bad choices, including diet and exercise that were involved in his current state. He does some rotten things while in this state in part because he lacks control, but in part because he's stubborn. It would be easy to just write him off as a stupid old cook who can be safely ignored. But that does him a gross indignity, especially in light of the fact he has probably spent more time in the service of others than he has in taking care of himself.
I think it is a gross indignity in part due to issues of medical and mental capacity. Unless someone is going to offer mental incapacity and a compromised mental state as an excuse for card's actions, I am not readily going to be able to find an ability to make the moral equivalency bridge here. Card is a man who ostensibly of sound mind commits a large portion of his life to persecuting gays. This is incredibly different in all ways to figuring out the morality situation of the grandparents here.
quote:I've never advocated doing "nothing" in response to his stated views. Not one time.
Correct, you are advocating that people not do some things because either it hurts feelings or 'entrenches' people in a position of wrongness.
quote:
quote:"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
I agree with the first half, and I am not sure if the second is saying that to alienate another is to be defeated, or to be alienated is defeat. [/qb]
it's saying that in a war of ideas, you can only win by persuading the other side to yours, and if you instead alienate the other side this is pretty much a total loss.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I wasn't aware of Dan Simmmons' views and did a quick perusal of his website and forums. Definitely an angry political tenor over there - yeesh.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I wasn't aware of Dan Simmmons' views and did a quick perusal of his website and forums. Definitely an angry political tenor over there - yeesh.
These posts raise a good point. There are probably lots of authors, producers, script writers, whatever, that hold views I disagree with or see as being abhorrent. But seeing as how I'm a bit lazy, and only have so much free time, I don't do research on every person whose work I enjoy.
However, work like that isn't necessary to know what Orson Scott Card says and does. OCS goes out and gives his money, fame, and time to an organization as vile as NOM. He writes entire columns denigrating gays and declaring that to treat them as equals to straights would destroy America. He, metaphorically, gets in people's faces and lets them know what he thinks, delibrately, because he wants to make a difference.
Well, he has made a difference. People think he's a bigot, and less people will pay to see his movie then would have otherwise, so there's a difference right there. None of that would have happened if he'd been like Simmons and kept his beliefs about gays hidden under metaphors about how important mother-father families are in his books, and how people who don't procreate count less. Instead, he joined the public debate.
Let him eat his just desserts for that. And really, we all know it's not going to be a big serving. Any boycott won't be a blip on the radar.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah in Simmons' case, I only know about his views on Islam based on a wacky short story he put on his website a while back. If he's made other statements or written other essays since then, they haven't entered my sphere of attention.
[And really, Card's stance on Islam probably lines up pretty well to Simmons'.]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you have links to a well-reasoned and thoughtful call for a boycott of Ender's Game, I'd be very much obliged.
Because you specifically requested a link.
(Link Removed by JanitorBlade)
[ July 12, 2013, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Could you PM it to me instead? Sorry I didn't specify.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"So, having acted intolerantly and intolerably, Card now has the gall to ask for tolerance. And to suggest that, if he’s held accountable for his actions in any way (even, presumably, through a citizens’ boycott of his work), it would somehow be proof that the forces of fairness and tolerance really aren’t any better than him after all."
yeah the rest of the article ENTIRELY ASIDE, i dare the world to prove that this isn't an accurate predictive lambasting. I DARE YOU, WORLD.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.
Says the state ban on gay marriage violates the constitution's equal protection clause. I think a full faith and credit argument would be included too, but I haven't read the full opinion yet.
Judicial order came from a federal court judge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.
i guess it sort of counts in the way costa rica sort of counts as a state?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You are thinking of Puerto Rico. Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.
i guess it sort of counts in the way costa rica sort of counts as a state?
I don't understand; things that happen outside of the United States don't matter? Or they're not what this thread is about? If the latter, the thread title doesn't really make that clear.
Gay people got a victory in Costa Rica at the expense of idiotic legislators. I figured we could be happy with one and laugh at the other. Sorry?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh right, I was thinking of puerto rico.
my statement was under the idea that this took place in a u.s. territory and it was kind of a victory in kind of a state
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Michigan almost became 15 last Wednesday. Judge Friedman was widely expected to overturn the state ban, but instead refused to issue summary judgement and pushed it off to a full hearing in February. I think he's waiting to see what happens in New Jersey.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormon church) recently reneged on its commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wasn't aware the LDS church made any sort of commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight. The Guardian (and the linked Mother Jones article) certainly doesn't actually present one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sure. The way the guardian is putting it is not that the church openly made a statement committing not to fight gay marriage (wouldn't that have been better, though?), but that they committed to holding off on the gay marriage fight for the sake of preventing potential electability concerns for Romney, and have gone back to being an active enemy of marriage equality since then.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormon church) recently reneged on its commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight."
Except nobody in the church actually implied or hinted at this. You might as well argue that if I fail to show up at the gym one day, I have committed to stop exercising.
That's a ludicrous use of the word commitment. The Guardian is clearly trying to present duplicity on the part of the LDS church.
Further, Romney failed to be elected a year ago. What the church spent the last 11 months or so waiting for the election results to be verified?
"The image conscious Mormon church received such a pounding from all it did during the Prop 8 campaign that they decided they better play nice and quit all their gay-bashing....
While the church's image suffered badly, the other reason the Mormon church was sitting out last year's gay marriage debates was so that it would not jeopardize in any way shape or form what was deemed the "Mormon moment"
The church didn't decide to "play nice" it decided its present strategy was not working, and probably reevaluated what it's doing.
Look, I was hoping the church was backpedaling too, and was disappointed by Hawaii but I have no patience for nonsense like that Guardian article.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't recall, and the article doesn't offer any references to, pledges to abandon a political effort to fight against SSM so I have to agree with BlackBlade unless it turns out I'm wrong about those beliefs.
That said, it's unsurprising that something as hugely important as 'the family' and 'real marriage' (which are sometimes, supposedly, absolutely vital and worthy of almost any struggle) can be set aside for the sake of short-term political expedience. Strange to see God's Prophet behave in a manner that appears so very cynical.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:That said, it's unsurprising that something as hugely important as 'the family' and 'real marriage' (which are sometimes, supposedly, absolutely vital and worthy of almost any struggle) can be set aside for the sake of short-term political expedience.
I seriously doubt the church put the brakes on its efforts to curtail same-sex marriage purely out of some hope that Mr. Romney being elected president would somehow give them loads of goodies.
For all we know the Romney campaign asked the church to consider moving less aggressively for their sake, and the church decided to do so out of respect for Romney.
But I don't think it lines up, the church continued to not make headlines for almost a year after Romney failed to be elected president.
It'd be nice if we had a list of states that considered the gay marriage question after Nov 2012 until now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Individually I am completely unsold on the narrative that their period of pulling back from the fight against marriage equality was for the sake of Romney.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Individually I am completely unsold on the narrative that their period of pulling back from the fight against marriage equality was for the sake of Romney.
I don't think the reason the church pulled back had to do with Romney either. I think the church's missionary work suffered in California (I have no data to prove this however) and think they pulled back in order to let things quiet down a bit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think it was only for Romney. I think it was politically linked, though. The Romney campaign brought the Mormon church into the mainstream spotlight in ways that are, to this point, unusual for it.
They were getting enough flak for their anti-SSM efforts before the 2012 election brought them under the focus of a nationwide opposition that might look for ways to expose weaknesses or at least the perception of vulnerabilities and problems.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's a bit of a cheap tactic, Rakeesh, to guess the motives of the Church and then condemn them for having such poor motives.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.
You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.
Well generally I think it's better to incorrectly praise someone or something than to castigate them incorrectly. But from a logic perspective: no, it's no more logical. Why is that relevant?
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it's relevant because it highlights a bias in your observation. Furthermore it points out that perhaps the relevance isn't that you're as concerned with making up motives and assigning moral judgments to them-but rather the criticism itself.
You've acknowledged that the praise isn't as bad, in your eyes, as the criticism.
On a broader point, I'm afraid I'm simply not going to be able to feel bad at all about speculating on the political motives of an organization that has so thoroughly connected itself to politics as has the LDS church. If it wants that not to happen, perhaps not hire so many frigging lobbyists for a start.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's also a cheap tactic to guess at the motives of the Church and praise them for having such virtuous motives, but, eh. The back and forth of this is a good case that the church is being ambiguous about its motives in a way it doesn't have to be. Which is worth paying attention to, because that means something.
The overarching motive of the church in this regard is patently obvious (it is trying to prevent gays from marrying by influencing lawmakers and elections). The guesswork and hypothesis is largely in regards to potential reasons why their actions have played out why they have, over the course of their apparently renewed attempts to fight against marriage equality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.
You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?
First, are you aware of the difference between "made up" and "has some reasoning behind it"? I think that, if there is compelling evidence that, of course, it makes sense to speculate on the motives of people or an organization. More, we do it all the time - we have to in order to make good decisions. If you have evidence to support a different motivation, go ahead and share it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Well, it's relevant because it highlights a bias in your observation. Furthermore it points out that perhaps the relevance isn't that you're as concerned with making up motives and assigning moral judgments to them-but rather the criticism itself.
How come you're now making up motives for me? Of course I'm biased. I mean for one, I hardly post here any more, so by only responding to a select few posts is already a bias. I post about things I care about. What does it matter if it's entirely driven by bias that I made my observation? I posted it because I respect you as someone who, while almost always being on the opposite side of the argument from my position, tends to make honest arguments and respect those who do so even when they disagree. Saying "I bet the church did X for reason Y" and then "reason Y is so cynical, it's transparent the leader isn't God's prophet." is an underhanded trick.
And worrying that the person who pointed it out is a member of the LDS Church seems a bit like sidestepping the Church to me. I mean your response was that you leveled a criticism at me for not liking it when my Church is insulted. It's true: I don't like it. But then you admit that you won't worry about etiquette because of their political involvement. Another bias. Which is fine, I just think you can make that argument without cheap tricks. And I'll do my best to make my argument without cheap tricks.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.
You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?
First, are you aware of the difference between "made up" and "has some reasoning behind it"? I think that, if there is compelling evidence that, of course, it makes sense to speculate on the motives of people or an organization. More, we do it all the time - we have to in order to make good decisions. If you have evidence to support a different motivation, go ahead and share it.
This is another misdirection. "We have to make best guesses in order to make good decisions in life" is a perfectly sensible sentence. But hidden in that is the implicit idea that a decision that you (or Rakeesh) really needed to make or your life would not move forward was: can I make an offhanded, sarcastic criticism of a Church leader from a Church I don't believe in or belong to? Was that so important that a guess as to political motivation was sufficient cause to make it? You both seem to have plenty of legitimate criticisms, why make stuff up?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, what do you mean by making stuff up? Are you saying that the evidence doesn't support Rakeesh's conclusion? Is there evidence to support a different conclusion?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Why do you have to come to a conclusion at all? Assigning a motive when they haven't declared one is making stuff up. If you want to call it an "educated guess" you can do so, but it won't answer the question of why you needed to make such a guess. And certainly not why you needed to make the guess and then use that guess to insult the head of the Church.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hobbes,
quote:How come you're now making up motives for me? Of course I'm biased. I mean for one, I hardly post here any more, so by only responding to a select few posts is already a bias. I post about things I care about. What does it matter if it's entirely driven by bias that I made my observation? I posted it because I respect you as someone who, while almost always being on the opposite side of the argument from my position, tends to make honest arguments and respect those who do so even when they disagree. Saying "I bet the church did X for reason Y" and then "reason Y is so cynical, it's transparent the leader isn't God's prophet." is an underhanded trick.
First, thanks for the kind words. The respect is mutual and I regard it as a thing of value. Now, for all of the reasons you're totes wrong;)
I was criticizing your objection not because I thought you were wrong about my method being a trick (I can't argue with that, though I dispute its cheapness) but because you characterized your objection on the grounds of 'we shouldn't do that'. I was trying to point out that you, too, do just what you were criticizing me of-'make up' motives and assign value to them.
That's not surprising, since neither of us are robots, but doesn't it indicate that perhaps your problem might be-just a little-with the fact that your church is being criticized, rather than the style of the criticism? If it were mine, I don't think I'd be able to divorce my antagonism to such things as capably as you (appear to be) suggest you are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that.
If you want to argue that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion or give evidence of your own, that would be welcome. I just don't understand why motive seems to be off limits.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward it, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing your comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.
"You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that."
Since I've directly addressed this twice, I'll simply re-state my question: What important functions are you not able to carry out if you didn't guess at the Church's motivations for their political actions and then use that guess to insult them for having such poor motives?
Hobbes
[ December 02, 2013, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing you comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.
Ouch! You turn a compliment like a knife;)
This is beginning to go in circles (and others are making some of the same objections-I don't want to turn it into a dogpile), so I'll just reiterate that while I think you have a case to make for my argument having been flawed, the fact that using exactly the same style argument, but to praise (that is, guessing the motive and praising them for it) didn't strike you as so objectionable...well, that speaks for itself I think. The problem isn't just with the argument.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I will readily admit that guessing someone's motives and then using that guess to praise them is just as flawed as using the guess to criticize.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward it, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing your comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.
"You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that."
Since I've directly addressed this twice, I'll simply re-state my question: What important functions are you not able to carry out if you didn't guess at the Church's motivations for their political actions and then use that guess to insult them for having such poor motives?
Hobbes
In this specific case? Figuring out how to counter such actions. Figuring out how to change the causes of such motivation. Speculating that someone want to ride a carcass to safety isn't crazy if there is evidence that that is what they want to do. The only reason it would be crazy is if there is no evidence that indicates that. If, for example, the person had ridden carcasses to safety before or, say, had a bunch of books about riding carcasses or something.
I maintain, despite your ridiculous examples that knowing why people do what they do is important and that human beings do it all the time. Why is my child crying? Why is my husband working so hard? Why is the city council giving that company that contract? Those shouldn't be off limit questions.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Even if you were actually planning a campaign to change the mind and heart of the leader of the LDS leader, that still wouldn't explain why you think it's reasonable to use your best guess of his motivation to insult him. Unless, I suppose, that was your plan to change his mind.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't say it was. My "horse" in this particular conversation is the frankly odd allergy to speculation on motivation. Presumably you don't think that your Church does things randomly. People make decisions and take action for reasons and those reasons are important.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Kate, I'll give you what I think is an equivalent example:
"The new Pope sure likes to talk about giving to charity. I bet it's because he just likes being in the spotlight. After all, he's in the news way more than the old pope, and you don't rise to that level of prominence in an organization as big as the Catholic Church without being good at and active in self-promotion. That seems like a really cynical way for God's representative on Earth to behave."
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is legitimate. And entirely possible. What is your evidence? Did he do a lot of spotlight seeking as a bishop? Is it consistent with his other actions? Are there other motivations that seem more likely? Could that be one motivation among many? Go ahead and argue your point.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Correct, the question is: "Can I prove that's his motivation?" not "Is he, thus, too cynical to be God's representative and whatever the fact that he is too cynical does to the legitimacy of the Catholic Church." And if I hide the link between the two (put some sentences between the assertion of his motivations and the conclusion that he's no good because of those motivations) then it's a question that can really only be answered after you tell me if you've stopped beating your wife.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't say prove; I would say, make a strong, reasonable case. But you didn't argue the case. Instead of presenting reasons why that wasn't the Church's motivation or how the evidence isn't sufficient, you condemned speculation on that motivation. If you don't like the conclusions Rakeesh has drawn, give some evidence to the contrary.
In your example, for instance, I would point out that while the bad press the Catholic Church has been getting on hot button issues (birth control, SSM) and the attitude of the laity on such issues could well be a motivating factor in Pope Francis's focus on social justice issues, he has not been a publicity hog in the past. (Unlike, say, Cardinal Dolan!) I might also point out that his experience with the poor in South America is another likely motivating factor.
I would not say that it was illegitimate to discuss his motives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.
I was merely grasping at a plausible explanation for the churches behavior that was not born out of duplicity.
I didn't say I believed that explanation was more or less likely than what the Guardian was positing as true.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I don't know if this thread is only about the US, but I'd like to share a link from Brazil (in Portuguese, unfortunately). 130 gay couples (including two friends of mine) got married yesterday in a big ceremony sponsored by Rio's court of justice. :-)
New Mexico is #17! The NMSC unanimously declared same-sex marriage a legal right with their ruling yesterday.
and... UTAH may be #18. (what, what, what??....Utah?? really?...UTAH? ). Federal district judge Robert Shelby in a summary judgment just threw out the gay marriage ban in Utah. His opinion was released today, only sixteen days after he heard oral arguments where each side pressed for summary judgment. It's an amazing read.
Here are a few bits:
quote: The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.
quote: In 1966, attorneys for the State of Virginia made the following arguments to the SupremeCourt in support of Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage: (1) “The Virginia statutes here under attack reflects [sic] a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries and which still obtains in seventeen states”; (2) “Inasmuch as we have already noted the higher rate of divorce among the intermarried, is it not proper to ask, ‘Shall we then add to the number of children who become the victims of their intermarried parents?’”; (3) “[I]ntermarriage constitutes a threat to society”; and (4) “[U]nder the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” Brief for Respondents at 47-52, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), 1967 WL 113931. These contentions are almost identical to the assertions made by the State of Utah in support of Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago. Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’sAmendment 3 achieves the same result.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
The first legal same sex marriages in Utah were performed today after the judge's ruling!! *pinch myself, am I dreaming?*
I hadn't realized that Judge Shelby's decision went into effect immediately with no stays waiting for appeal. Rather, the Utah AG will have file an emergency appeal for a stay.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And he probably will. But, hooray!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The mayor of SLC said he will stay up all night to marry anybody who comes down. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The fact that the judge cited Scalia's Windsor dissent as part of the rationale for his decision is supremely hilarious.
quote:In his dissent in Windsor, Scalia was b****ing and moaning that the majority's rationale would inevitably lead to the same challenge being mounted against state-level DOMAs as it was then being mounted against the federal one. Shelby's reference to that was his way of saying, "That's right, b*****, here I go."
from r/poli
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The mayor of SLC said he will stay up all night to marry anybody who comes down.
You've come a long way on this issue haven't you BB? It's nice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The mayor of SLC said he will stay up all night to marry anybody who comes down.
You've come a long way on this issue haven't you BB? It's nice.
It's pretty full circle for me. The legislation that was declared unconstitutional I agonized over here a long time ago.
it's really weird to see how completely some people here changed between 2006 and 2010. Like, as people. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, I read that post and there's quite a bit that's different.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I was quite pedantic in my post...
Posted by JoeAlvord (Member # 12665) on :
I love the Irony. The LDS were instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed in California. That prompted the lawsuit that eventually went to the supreme court and led to the decision that was used to overturned the Utah ban on same sex marriage.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There will be a hearing for a regular non-emergency stay tomorrow morning at 9. But Clerk's Offices are opening at 8 so there will be at least an hour of marryin' time. It's also likely that some counties will still refuse to grant licenses, though Salt Lake and Weber counties are definitely on board, promising to be open at 8am sharp.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by JoeAlvord: I love the Irony. The LDS were instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed in California. That prompted the lawsuit that eventually went to the supreme court and led to the decision that was used to overturned the Utah ban on same sex marriage.
The LDS church was instrumental in getting several bans on gay marriage passed before Prop 8. With it being involved so extensively it seems hardly surprising that one of those efforts became the main target of a counter-suit trying to remove all bans nationally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seems like a foregone conclusion now that Michigan will follow suit in February when the US district court judge finally hears the case and renders a verdict. He's been ducking a decision for months waiting for other courts to decide first. I think he wanted to go there but he wanted cover so it wasn't overturned. I think he was also waiting for better polling numbers. He has both in hand.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
There will be a hearing for a regular non-emergency stay tomorrow morning at 9. But Clerk's Offices are opening at 8 so there will be at least an hour of marryin' time. It's also likely that some counties will still refuse to grant licenses, though Salt Lake and Weber counties are definitely on board, promising to be open at 8am sharp.
Cache County where I am is also on board. They will be issuing licenses in the morning. Washington County (St. George) began issuing licenses during the last business hour Friday, and two same-sex couples got them before closing time.
Does anyone know the protocol for a hearing requesting a stay on a federal ruling in the 10th Circuit? Does Judge Shelby have to rule at the hearing itself or is there deliberation time? Apparently the Circuit Court cannot rule until Shelby makes a decision regarding the request for a stay. Personally, I hope he takes his sweet time deliberating so that many more couples have time to get licenses. After he rules on the request (which, based on the wording of his opinion, he is almost certain to deny), the Circuit Court will likely respond quickly granting the stay to 'maintain the status quo' .
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication.
That's OK, have you seen how badly prophets have it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Apparently Utah government lawyers are arguing that the uncertainty regarding a stay being granted is causing harm to gay couples who deserve to know what the status quo is going to be. So they would be better served by the restriction being reinstated for now.
Yeah, that sounds laughably like "This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
From what I've read, the Utah government's case has been really, truly bad from the getgo. Much like the defense of Prop 8 in California, it looks like many of the arguments were presented without any supporting evidence.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: From what I've read, the Utah government's case has been really, truly bad from the getgo. Much like the defense of Prop 8 in California, it looks like many of the arguments were presented without any supporting evidence.
I think this was more a symptom than the disease when it came to defending these things. It was like all of a sudden, once the courts actually started hearing these cases in earnest, the anti-equality people suddenly realized that all their defenses were horribly unjustified and stupid, and they couldn't think of better ones.
But the disease was the fact that the legal system had been so far behind in this arena, litigating the old legislation, that by the time the newwer reactionary laws in question were pushed through, they were so obviously unconstitutional and bunk that they were impossible to defend.
It's one thing when you're arguing against a new interpretation of an old set of laws and values: Does marriage as we understood it in 1990 mean gay couples? Nobody was sure legally. New decisions came slow or not at all. But when you're arguing in favor of a wholly new interpretation of the marriage laws (namely that they *do not* include marriage equality), it becomes much more clear who's in the right.
The disease is that these newer laws ever made it onto the books: their arrival was the death knell of segregated marriage. Just nobody explained that to these people.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication.
That's OK, have you seen how badly prophets have it?
But aren't prophets officially amateur status, by their very nature?
Now those _oracles_, on the other hand...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The 10th Circuit has denied the motion for a stay.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Presumably the Utah County clerk is now going to wait for a motion for a stay to be brought to SCOTUS, just to be sure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I doubt SCOTUS will hear the case. They've already ruled on this, and the lower decision was made in line with their previous one. A stay is only warranted if the court reasonably believes the case may present an opportunity for a more decisive decision at higher levels. In this case, there's no reason to believe that this is true. SCOTUS will likely not even hear this case- so no stay.
This is, after all, the way it works. SCOTUS sets a precedent, and then the dominos fall. No surprises actually.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Utah County started issuing licenses on Thursday.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i still can't get over that this is utah doing this now.
right now utah is kind of all just standing there gloating at its neighbors going 'haha i'm making y'all look bad hahahahaha'
for shame, colorado. for shame.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
It looks like Texas just jumped on board.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Texas was pushed forward, but they aren't there yet. They won't start issuing licenses yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Brewer vetoed the Arizona legislation, and told them to quit wasting Arizona's time.
That combined with her implementation of the ACA makes me think that Arizona might be a saner place than Utah.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering things Brewer has said and done in the past, I'm convinced she's had a stroke in the last year.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
A stroke of political survival instinct?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Though I'm happy with the outcome, I'm not at all comfortable with "big business" directly contacting a governor to tell her how she should handle a particular bill.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is pretty much standard procedure in all government these days. Lobbyists do exactly that. or google VP Cheney's Energy Task Force sometime.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If Apple opens up shop in Arizona and encourages gay people to work for them, and businesses in Arizona start shuttering their doors to their employees because of laws like this, Apple loses out on talent pool, its employees will be negatively affected by the environment, and its customers will want an explanation for why they knowingly opened a factory in Arizona where this is going on.
All of those things can be avoided with a simple veto. Seems like an obvious thing to make a phone call for.
Also I know Tesla Motors and presumably Panasonic are looking at Arizona as a site to build their ion battery factory which will more than double world production of the things. Telling no to Apple is a no to many other firms down the road.
Of course the decision to veto should not be made purely from a business standpoint, but I don't think we should ignore it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Though I'm happy with the outcome, I'm not at all comfortable with "big business" directly contacting a governor to tell her how she should handle a particular bill.
Hobbes
I think there are a lot of problems with the way government and big business interact, but if we were to pretend that those problems didn't already exist, I'm curious how you would respond to a hypothetical situation:
You are a CEO, and a situation arises in which a state law would make it more difficult to operate your business. You do not think the benefits of the law outweigh the harm to your business and other like businesses. The governor is deciding whether to veto the law.
What do you do in this situation?
I think any rational CEO will urge the governor to veto the bill.
I think this is basically OK.
What do you think?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm more concerned about the governor taking the call than Apple making it.
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That makes sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm more concerned about the governor taking the call than Apple making it.
Hobbes
I am too, but the truth is that call is being made constantly before the election, during the term, and after they leave office. And I don't feel I'm especially overstating things to say 'constantly', either. Campaign contributions, lobbyists, and the number of staffers who either come straight from or will go straight to various business and industry involvement (or both!), and the of course the actual politicians themselves.
This is instructive not because it's alarming or worrying, but because it's an indicator of how overt things would be if they were permitted.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm more concerned about the governor taking the call than Apple making it.
Hobbes
That's a good point. I admit I was thinking of a public statement or something like that, not a phone call.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
vetoing the bill means that evil liberals and their war on christianity is .. uh, something something our liberties?
YEAH SO LIKE IDAHO OR IOWA OR ONE OF THOSE PODUNK STATES
arkansas too? i'm seriously having trouble following the latest states to fall into wrath-tempting acceptance of sin and the rejection of christ or whatever
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What will happen now is a) more states will continue to domino, and b) the GOP will use it to get people to the polls. I'm glad to see this happen, but I'm not looking forward to the next five years or so.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The Supreme Court has said it will not review several of the appeals in support of SSM bans. Several states, including Utah, are now on track to be performing SSMs again very soon.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
And the Ninth Circuit ruled against Nevada and Idaho's bans today.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i have not been following but i think this is the election coming up for congress where it is most of those still swingy states who got democrats through on the power of election year obama charisma
so i would assume that the republicans are probably gonna sweep a ton of seats, and try to get over 50
prior to recently i would have assumed they were most likely gonna do so but i suppose it's going to be in doubt, which means you can expect all of the pew-crammer wedge issue to come through in droves. gay marriage will be brought up a lot still, since they really want to cash out as hard as they can to get over the line
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no, wait, i was totally following this, i'm just being forgetful. yeah the upcoming election is the predicted best sweeps week option for the republican party before an at best guess demographic nightmare coming to roost in 17-18
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Half of alabama (obviously the half with REAL AMERICAN values) wishes to remain in the stone age.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this roy moore stuff is getting absurd
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
What roy moore stuff?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Presumably the stuff where he's defying the supreme court?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
*groan* I don't wanna Google it myself...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Over the thirteen years I worked at The Birmingham News I had the displeasure of drawing Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore numerous times. He is and always shall be a demagogue of the very worst sort. His hatred of our gay citizens was so zealous that he once issued a decision against a lesbian couple fighting for custody of their child by quoting an Old Testament passage that strongly implied homosexuals should be killed. Even after being removed from office for deciding he was above the law the voters of Alabama returned him to the bench. He remains an embarrassment to a state I love and to all those who believe in the rule of law. "
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has ignored the law, rejected the U.S. Constitution, and flouted the oath by which he swore to abide. But I don't think Roy Moore cares.
Following the ruling by a federal district judge that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Processes Clauses of the 14th Amendment, Moore took public action -- not as a private citizen, but as Alabama's leading judge. On Supreme Court of Alabama letterhead, Moore sent a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley on January 27th and instructed him that marriage is beyond the reach of the Constitution of the United States, advising the governor to ignore federal courts and their so-called "judicial tyranny." He followed his letter to the governor by telling the press that a confrontation was imminent if the federal court's order was enforced. In one swift stroke, Moore violated judicial canon and flagrantly ignored the duties of his office.
Even after a clarifying letter from that same judge who ruled the ban unconstitutional, Moore doubled down. He explicitly urged probate judges to ignore the law and refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying that the federal court lacked the authority to make these decisions.
This isn't Chief Justice Moore's first rodeo. A decade ago, he ignored a federal court order requiring the removal of a statue of the Ten Commandments from the State Judicial Building. For this offense, he was removed by the State Supreme Court in 2003. "[T]he Oath taken by Chief Justice Moore commands him to support both the United States and Alabama Constitutions," read the opinion removing him. "In the event of a conflict between the constitutions of Alabama and the United States, the Constitution of the United States must prevail."
In short, Roy Moore was wrong then, and he's wrong again today. That's why the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is proud to support the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in their ethics complaint seeking Moore's removal.
Because what's clear today is Roy Moore doesn't care about the law. Roy Moore doesn't care about the Constitution. Roy Moore cares mostly about Roy Moore and his particular set of deeply-felt personal beliefs. His particular brand of demagoguery is not based in a failure to understand the laws he is duty bound to uphold, but in an outright refusal to do so. That's not a Chief Justice; that's an ideologue. An ideologue has his place -- in the opinion pages of the newspaper or on morning talk shows on cable news -- but he should not be Alabama's most senior jurist.
If Roy Moore isn't prepared to uphold the law, than perhaps the role of Chief Justice isn't right for him. And if he doesn't recognize that, then perhaps others should recognize it for him and remove him from office. The Court has lots of room for different legal thinkers, but it has no place for those who refuse to think about the law.
__________________
Chad Griffin
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
If even NASCAR thinks you're too conservative, you might be a redneck.
quote:Look what happened when the GOP in Georgia tried to 'clarify' that their religious freedom measure was non-descriminatory:
quote:During a Georgia House Judiciary Committee debate over the state’s new religious freedom bill, Rep. Mike Jacobs—a Republican!—called anti-gay legislators’ bluff. Jacobs proposed a simple amendment to the legislation clarifying that it must not be interpreted to legalize discrimination. Conservative representatives cried foul, asserting that an anti-discrimination amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill. When the amendment narrowly passed, conservatives quickly tabled the bill, postponing its consideration indefinitely. A religious freedom measure with an anti-discrimination provision, they decided, was not a real religious freedom measure at all.
quote:The Indiana law is the product of a G.O.P. search for a respectable way to oppose same-sex marriage and to rally the base around it. There are two problems with this plan, however. First, not everyone in the party, even in its most conservative precincts, wants to make gay marriage an issue, even a stealth one—or opposes gay marriage to begin with. As the unhappy reaction in Indiana shows, plenty of Republicans find the anti-marriage position embarrassing, as do some business interests that are normally aligned with the party. Second, the law is not an empty rhetorical device but one that has been made strangely powerful, in ways that haven’t yet been fully tested, by the Supreme Court decision last year in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling allowed the Christian owners of a chain of craft stores to use the federal version of the RFRA to ignore parts of the Affordable Care Act. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, argued strongly that the majority was turning that RFRA into a protean tool for all sorts of evasions. As Jeffrey Toobin has noted, she was proved right even before the Indiana controversy.
Both of those factors have combined to produce real confusion about the Indiana law. Some people are not being straightforward about its implications, whether because they are calculating, mortified, or—in the case of opponents, some of whom have also been unclear about what the law means—alarmed, but it also inhabits novel legal territory, so it is genuinely hard to know what those implications would be. Governor Pence has done much to muddle things even more. On Sunday, on “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked Pence “a yes-or-no question” about whether “a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment.” He asked half a dozen times, but never got an answer:
quote:Pence: This is not about discrimination, this is about … Stephanopoulos: But … Pence: … empowering people … Stephanopoulos: But let me try to pin you … Pence: … government overreach here. Stephanopoulos: … down here though. … It’s just a question, sir. Question, sir. Yes or no? Pence: Well—well, this—there’s been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. People are trying to make it about one particular issue. And now you’re doing that as well.
quote:[T]he idea of religious practice seems to have morphed to include a vague sense of offense at the lives of others. In Hobby Lobby, it was corporate owners who felt “implicated” by the contraceptive decisions of the employees whose health insurance they helped pay for. A Heritage Foundation paper cited a baker who thought that his religious freedom would be infringed upon if he delivered his goods to a same-sex wedding, because, he said, “when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for”—as if he were being forced to get gay-married himself.
jfc
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal said as she stood in the restaurant, which is festooned with Christian paraphernalia.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” she added. “I do not think it’s targeting gays. I don’t think it’s discrimination. It’s supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”
Despite not believing that the bill would lead to targeted discrimination against members of the LGBT community, O’Connor told the station that her establishment would use the bill to avoid having to cater events like gay or non-Christian weddings."
think about this
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'd rather not. They're clearly trying to drum up publicity, hoping to be the next Chic-Fil-A.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Oh, look! They were *forced* to close their doors because of the evil backlash. Link.
I bet they absolutely hated talking about it on Fox News, BTW they accept Paypal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have absolutely no doubt that they are now getting flooded with harassment and nasty things from crazy people. this is exactly the sort of thing that the reactionary conflict theory 101 wing of the progressives are all over with conspicuous venom
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
INDIANAPOLIS—Addressing the controversy surrounding his state’s recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana governor Mike Pence forcefully insisted to reporters Monday that the new law has nothing at all to do with what it was explicitly intended to do. “Let me state directly that in no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing,” said Pence, emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place. “Regardless of the widespread misconceptions surrounding it, I want to reassure Hoosiers of all backgrounds that this law will never be interpreted in the way it was unambiguously designed to be from the very beginning.” Pence further clarified that the act’s sole purpose was in fact to safeguard the free exercise of religion it was in no way whatsoever created to protect.
- the onion
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The supreme court ruling today:
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered."
oh man eat it Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
scalia's dissent is going to be a fumbling apoplexy of grandpa-spittle
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
YEAH! I can marry a chick if i wanted to and didn't hate people so much and not just be married in places like Massachusetts. woo! Happy gay party! *is actually bisexual, but still!*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
turns out all four of the nay votes hammered out a bitter mash of impotent objection. i get a scalia dissent and a thomas dissent. my cup runneth over
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Get your conservative tears right here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god
quote:THOMAS: Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. 8 The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
thomas is deranged. he is absolutely deranged.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be perfectly fair to him, I understand what he's saying. He's just using a different definition of dignity than is meant by the comment to which he's responding. To Thomas, dignity is a self-produced and self-observed attribute; it is something that someone can decide he has, something that is innate in his assessment of his own being. Being beaten and forced to lick someone's shoes while wearing a clown nose does not strip you of your dignity if, as you do it, you recognize that this action does not actually force you to reassess your sense of self or your right to self-determination. You are not technically being forced to wear the clown nose; you are choosing to do it because you would prefer not to die, and the power in your acknowledgment of that choice can still grant you a measure of self-esteem.
By this logic, two men who love each other are not denied dignity in their relationship by the government's refusal to acknowledge it legally; that dignity is there as long as they believe it is.
But, of course, that definition of "dignity" is at odds with what was meant by "dignity" in the original observation: namely, recognition of the intrinsic validity of each of someone's potential choices.
And to be even more forgiving of Thomas, I can understand why -- given his personal history -- he might want to make it clear that dignity is purely a matter of self-will.
[ June 26, 2015, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah, the saving grace of technicality. That's the most important kind of being right there is! Because in a sense he is right. One can, if they are of heroic degrees of self-reliance and willpower, maintain a hold on their dignity in the face of, say, the guards at their internment camp.
Well, to an extent. From a particular angle of view. Though I would love to hear from any of the people he referenced who say 'I never felt I had lost my dignity'. Much less, you know, someone born into slavery. I suppose they didn't 'lose' anything not having had it to start with?
Bless his heart for the head take towards 'fags ain't in the image of God', though. I imagine he had to think carefully on the rhetoric there. Can't be too open, but the message must be understood!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I must admit the dissenting opinions are pretty sour grapes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People have often asked me how I can support marriage equality and be a good Catholic and I have answered in a variety of ways including explaining dissent and misconceptions about infallibility, pointing out that US Catholics actually support marriage equality at a higher rate than the general populace and so forth. I found this article that beautifully expressed why as a Catholic I support marriage equality.
quote: Those who possess a sacramental view of the world often realize that any human person or relationship that brings love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, generosity or faithfulness into the world is a sign of God's grace. Perhaps this is the reason so many Catholics defend marriage equality: They have recognized these graces can come forth as much through same-sex couples as heterosexual couples. Those who have a Catholic imagination recognize that a couple's ability to enter into a marriage commitment is not contingent on their anatomies, but on the depth, strength and fruitfulness of their bond.
Given their sacramental view of the world, it is little wonder that so many Catholics dissent from the bishops' disparaging characterization of LGBT persons and same-sex relationships. The hierarchy's position simply does not do justice to the power of the Catholic imagination.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's similar to asking why the vast majority of first world catholics consider themselves catholics even if they are flatly ignoring and handwaving away entire ironclad rules that are strictly and clearly presented. The more modern the nation, the more the remaining faithful just ignore archaic B.S. and effectively force change on God.
Imagine an american thirtysomething catholic: how likely are they to not use birth control or condoms and literally never masturbate not even for a doctor's test? Fantastically unlikely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We don't have to handwave and the rules are not (despite what some bishops like to think) ironclad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
here is where i get to be totally unfair and say "found the catholic in a modern nation"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...not so much. The Catholics in the fourth century found that as well. And the first century (see Paul). And the 17th century. And the nineteenth. And the twelfth...
[ June 29, 2015, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it's similar to asking why the vast majority of first world catholics consider themselves catholics even if they are flatly ignoring and handwaving away entire ironclad rules that are strictly and clearly presented. The more modern the nation, the more the remaining faithful just ignore archaic B.S. and effectively force change on God.
Imagine an american thirtysomething catholic: how likely are they to not use birth control or condoms and literally never masturbate not even for a doctor's test? Fantastically unlikely.
I went to a Catholic high school (in the bay area) in which the "morality" class (which was really sex education), openly discussed how to use various forms of birth control, and all their various advantages and disadvantages. The lecturer then stated at the end of any such lecture that "so you all understand the official position, these things are considered to be sinful by the church. Just so you know the official position."
Then he went on to discuss various other forms of birth control. The only hardline thing they actually pushed was on abortion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholics use birth control pretty much the same as everyone else does.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
But it is still immoral. The Catholic doctrine claims that woman's fertility is cyclical, thus the only way not to get pregnant is not to have sex when a woman is ovulating. Having sex when a woman is not ovulating is not a sin and is allowed.
Any kind of contraception is immoral and unnatural. Furhermore, an argument that contraception is a way of preventing abortion is completely wrong, as Catholicism does not allow the choosing a of a lesser "moral evil" (whereas lesser "physical evil" is allowed).
Although I do not follow Catholic doctrine, for me it's absolutely reasonable and ideologically coherent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is my sarcasm meter broken? Because...um, no.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: But it is still immoral. The Catholic doctrine claims that woman's fertility is cyclical, thus the only way not to get pregnant is not to have sex when a woman is ovulating. Having sex when a woman is not ovulating is not a sin and is allowed.
Any kind of contraception is immoral and unnatural. Furhermore, an argument that contraception is a way of preventing abortion is completely wrong, as Catholicism does not allow the choosing a of a lesser "moral evil" (whereas lesser "physical evil" is allowed).
Although I do not follow Catholic doctrine, for me it's absolutely reasonable and ideologically coherent.
I guess it is ideologically coherent, but why would a non-Catholic think birth control is wrong?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is my sarcasm meter broken? Because...um, no.
"No" what? It's not coherent? But it is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Your explanation of it wasn't at all coherent, I'm afraid. It i also not really Catholic doctrine. I mean, the reasons you suggest aren't doctrinal. Actual doctrine has to do with the purpose of marriage being procreative.
It also (the actual doctrine) isn't reasonable or practical. It is my opinion - based on the opinion of people with first hand experience with the process that led to Humanae vitae including that of a woman who was on the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control - is that our failure to admit error was the key factor in the outcome.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I never said they taught us that birth control is a means to stop abortions, nor that this was a doctrinal teaching. They simply taught us about different methods of birth control. And they also showed us a really horrifying video starring Charlton Heston about a late term abortion. A video our teacher actually qualified by saying that such procedures are very rare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WASHINGTON -- In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.
The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal contract over this issue.
The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman" or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill "clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers" and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.
This scenario isn't merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant. A Montana Catholic school teacher who was fired for having a baby out of wedlock, for example, filed a discrimination charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, that exception is somewhat limited, not necessarily covering educators employed by Catholic schools who teach about exclusively secular subjects.
James Ryan, a spokesman for the EEOC, said the commission could not comment on pending legislation in Congress.
At a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), who authored the House bill, strongly denied that it could be used this way. "It's just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do," he told The Huffington Post.
His colleague, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) said, "We're not going to try to dance on the head of a pin here. This legislation protects an institution based on its sincerely held religious beliefs from persecution."
When NPR asked Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who introduced the companion Senate bill, about a hypothetical university firing an unmarried woman for having sex out of wedlock, he said, "There are colleges and universities that have a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage" and they "ought to be protected in their religious freedom."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why is it just those religious rights being enshrined? What about firing people who aren't charitable?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Where was this sincere belief about not doing business with people who live in violation of ones own moral guidelines a few years ago? This is such a novelty, you'd think Christ had descended and announced the new rule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i flipped over a moneylender's table and literally whipped him. this is something that jesus did and yet nobody's protecting my religious rights
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Pretty sure Right To Work has got that covered.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is it just those religious rights being enshrined? What about firing people who aren't charitable?
It's written broadly enough to where I think you could make the argument.
This law, if passed, doesn't really do anything other than, for the moment, have Congress say that it thinks the 1st Amendment (as they understand it) trumps the 14th Amendment (and probably a couple others).
Ultimately it's just greasing the skids to a SCOTUS case in a few years where they'll roll the dice and hope the court happens to lean more Conservative that day.
But in the meantime...the First Church of Cannabis, and many other start-up religions would likely do their best to have a field day.
I can't wait.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
Aside from the practicality issues of figuring out if someone has been having premarital sex or been divorced?
Let's say one of the side effects of premarital sex was the appearance of a big "F" on your forehead. Do you think there would be no clerks to ever refuse to perform a marriage on them?
In another 10 years when this becomes an issue of the past you'll be able to reuse this argument for the next issue.
"I wonder why county clerks are refusing to perform polygamous marriages when there aren't any who refuse to perform gay marriage."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So it doesn't matter *what* the sin is, just how visible it is. Because that's what's important. Got it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is that argument intended to be serious, stiles? Because for one, the state could easily track who has had a divorce and who hasn't. No one is interested in *that*, even the people who disapprove on religious grounds, those so very interested people.
And of course there have been clerks who knew themselves that the parties were or had been unfaithful. There was no heroic stand on religious principle in those cases, were there?
It was almost as though as county employees they work for the government and for us and not for their goddamn bibles or churches.
Of course later, when say a group of employees wants to start a union or objects to a given labor practice, or something, all of this heroic stance of conscience garbage will dry right up among far right conservatives, right, stiles?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Because for one, the state could easily track who has had a divorce and who hasn't.
Yes but I doubt that County Clerk Kim Davis has the man power or ability to cross reference divorce record databases from all states with current marriage license applicants and name change databases.
It's not exactly I would call easy for the lone county clerk trying to get her moral outrage on.
Besides, the divorce and fornication battle was fought long ago.
quote:And of course there have been clerks who knew themselves that the parties were or had been unfaithful. There was no heroic stand on religious principle in those cases, were there?
Can you prove that Kim Davis knowingly married divorcees against her religious convictions?
Before you dog pile into thinking I'm a bigot who agrees with Kim and the lot I don't. I fully agree with this statement here.
quote:It was almost as though as county employees they work for the government and for us and not for their goddamn bibles or churches.
Or in other words, yes it is their job to marry people as the state orders them to. If they don't like it, then they should resign. Though I was disappointed to read an article where someone did resign and that decision was mocked as well. But that's facebook comments for you.
But do you really think that there is 100% equivalence between gay marriage and divorce remarriage? Like there is no difference whatsoever between those two? You can't come up with any differences at all?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce, for starters. (See Matthew 19)
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I must be missing something because it would appear that you are being willfully obtuse.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Is Matthew 19 the one where he talks about putting aside wives? Which really looks like an endorsement of polygamy if you parse the language closely enough?
Biblically speaking, the only difference between gay marriage and remarriage after divorce is that one is sodomy and the other is fornication (and maybe sodomy). If it's really about religious principles then I don't see much relevant difference.
I don't see why someone should be allowed to argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed. Or because previous generations have failed to keep those principles mainstream?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:I don't see why someone should be allowed to argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed. Or because previous generations have failed to keep those principles mainstream?
Who are you talking to? No one has argued that.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Yes but I doubt that County Clerk Kim Davis has the man power or ability to cross reference divorce record databases from all states with current marriage license applicants and name change databases.
It's not exactly I would call easy for the lone county clerk trying to get her moral outrage on.
And
quote:Besides, the divorce and fornication battle was fought long ago.
I was also suggesting that those were some of the differences between gay marriage and remarriage. It is harder to tell if part of a couple is remarrying and it is more acceptable to object to gay marriage than to remarriage after divorce.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stiles, what *is* the difference between homosexual marriage and divorce in this respect then? The objections against both are religious in nature. The state does not choose to involve itself in the private family affairs of two people in one case-divorce-but did until recently in the case of another, homosexual marriage.
Hat is the difference? Few joy by suggesting that there is a difference it really seems you are being the obtuse one.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
This is what I was responding to.
There is a difference between knowingly conducting a ceremony that at least to you makes it seem as though you are giving your stamp of approval (even though it is the states stamp not yours) and having an intellectual knowledge that someone who is getting married might have had sex previously to the ceremony.
Also, the bible doesn't say that if you have had sex before marriage you can't get married ever. Nor does it say if you have had a divorce you can't ever remarry. It says don't have sex before marriage and don't get divorced. Not, if you do either of these things it is a sin to get married.
NH,
I didn't argue anywhere that Kim should be able to "argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed." I simply argued that there is an easy to determine difference between marrying gay people and marrying people who have fornicated.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I'd have to double-check the exact words, but the traditional interpretation of the relevant passage has been that a marriage after divorce is not a marriage (a good selection of the Fathers of the Church were pretty dubious about second marriages, period [yes, I'm referring to first millenium theologians, go early or go home, damn it.]). Like, the sacramental effects don't happen and thus any sex is fornication (unless you get divorced because the woman committed adultery). So, it does say you can't get remarried after a divorce.
There may be a similar problem if the woman is not a virgin. But since I'm remembering that objection by way of a source which argued sex=marriage, one should probably take it with a grain of salt.
There might be an easy to determine difference, but it makes her "religious principles" look rather cheap if the possibility of a little willful ignorance is all she needs to slip past them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there's still a lot of religious wankery going on these days about what you can and can't do involving divorce. Orthodox judaism has the super dumb super patriarchal terrible get thing and let us not forget that while most catholics simply conveniently ignore it, catholicism expressly does not permit divorce. You have to plead to the church for a retcon, which they can decide to give or not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
Also, the bible doesn't say that if you have had sex before marriage you can't get married ever. Nor does it say if you have had a divorce you can't ever remarry. It says don't have sex before marriage and don't get divorced. Not, if you do either of these things it is a sin to get married.
Yes it does. Why do you think I mentioned Matthew 19? (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't to be obtuse) Jesus very clearly and explicitly condemns men who divorce and remarry.
Whereas there is no place in the bible that even mentions gay marriage. For that matter, Jesus never mentions homosexuality at all, and the subject comes up a total of 2 or 3 times total. Once in Leviticus, once as an aside about the current culture in Romans. I don't remember any other mentions, but I can't rule it out.
My point is most "religious objections" to gay marriage are actually cultural objections, since the Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage at all but sure talks about other parts of marriage plenty.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Point DB. I think we're done here. Resume your gleeful mockery. Sorry for interrupting.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Dogbreath, to be fair, the bible is pretty explicit about the whole opposite sex thing for marriage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does it explicitly condemn it? Just curious, a serious question.
-----
Stiles, this clerk-and frankly just about all who oppose ssm-do so on biblical grounds. The state shouldn't allow it because the bible says so. Therefore it is worthwhile and totally, 100% relevant to discover what else the bible permits and disallows with respect to marriage, and if there turns out to be an enormous glaring hypocritical contradiction, that's fair game. Which means the only question is: is DB right or not? Does that biblical verse say what he claims, stiles?
As for mocking those who resigned, while its not something I would do (mocking them) just for that, much depends on what else they did. Like if they've got a history of talking about who god hates and how this is a Christian nation and all of that bull-most especially if they've been a strutting, arrogant mocker themselves when they had power and are only now discovering a concern with minority rights-I might make fun of them.
But then as you say, Internet comment pages are always able to disappoint.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Resume your gleeful mockery.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Seriously, I read through the past several pages of this thread to be sure, and I can't find anything I posted that can be reasonably interpreted as "gleeful mockery."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh sure dogbreath, rub it in with your sneering contempt
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
as a dignified liberal elitist, the most I can offer is a raised eyebrow and a slight twitch of the upper lip. Maybe a flared nostril, if you're lucky.
If you want to see the rest come out, you should drop in on the wine and cheese party I'm hosting at my ivory tower later. We'll be reading from Ulysses. (James Joyce, of course. None of that Tennyson garbage)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
So funny story: County Clerk Kim Davis has been divorced three times. It gets better. Husband #3 fathered her kids while she was married to #1. Husband #2 and #4 are the same guy.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
According to the discussion on sakeriver, her marital history occurred before her conversion. It doesn't make her actions correct, but it takes a little of the bite out of the hypocrisy, IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What...
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Okay, found the thread on Sake (that's where you all went...I keep for getting this place exists). I get points for finding it in a thread labelled ISIS, right?
Apparently, the woman started being "serious" about religion four years ago, at age 45. The zeal of a recent convert? IF this was all 20 years ago, that's one thing. It's not, really.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Wrong thread, Samp.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
nuts
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Okay, found the thread on Sake (that's where you all went...I keep for getting this place exists). I get points for finding it in a thread labelled ISIS, right?
Apparently, the woman started being "serious" about religion four years ago, at age 45. The zeal of a recent convert? IF this was all 20 years ago, that's one thing. It's not, really.
More of the magical thinking that we are all expected to embrace simply because she does: that she is permitted to be a moral authority to everyone else, even those who do not share her faith, simply because her faith allows her a reset button which affords her a cover to ignore her incredibly hypocritical past on this particular topic.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think a "reset button" applies only to her faith. There are ideologies that I believed in the past that I no longer agree with. If I heard someone else espousing those beliefs I would explain why I think they're wrong. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite just because I used to think/do something that I would now argue with.
She's wrong in this case for logical and ethical reasons. I don't think she needs to be called a hypocrite because she did things that she no longer believes in.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm trying to imagine myself in a similar situation.
Let's say Ted Cruz gets elected POTUS. You're working in a public assistance program. Word comes down from the feds that you now have to drug test and refuse benefits to anyone that fails. Would you ignore it, fight it, or resign?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
...
I would do the job that I was getting paid to do. If I happened to think drug testing was somehow immoral (I don't, I just think it's inefficient and not very helpful), then I would resign and seek employment elsewhere.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I would make the people pee in a cup. It is my job, and it isn't like I am being asked to do anything unethical or illegal*. I am sure my job is to deny people who need money but do not qualify for whatever reason all day. We are just adding one more reason. If I want to make the laws, I should be a politician, or speak in front of them about why it is humilitating.
Fortunately very few people fail, so much so that it isn't cost effective.
This analogy breaks down if you consider that people want the city clerk to marry them, but don't necessarily want to be tested. Personally, I found the experience thrilled my inner twelve year old, as I don't do drugs, and was quite curious about just how much specemen I could make at once, as it is not something I generally measure. Think Tom Hanks in a League of Their Own.
Now imagine that everyone *wanted* to participate in the government-sponsored pissing contest, and your job was to take samples, but your religion didn't permit you to touch other people's pee, even in cups. That is a more apt analogy.
*Employment drug testing is illegal in my city. Not my company, which has HQ out of state, and they are happy to drug test us there. It was a condition of my employment.
[ September 03, 2015, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Or you just thought pee was icky, even in cups. Which is an even more apt analogy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Word comes down from the Feds" as a policy decision is different than a court order. Even after the Supreme Court decision, she would not have gone to jail except that there was a lawsuit and an injunction specifically ordering her to issue the licenses. She defied that court order.
If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Alright, it was a poor analogy. I just meant that it's hard for me to sympathize with her because I emphatically disagree with her opinion on gay marriage, but I was trying to imagine if I would feel differently if my job required me to do something that I was strongly morally opposed to.
"If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless."
I think that's the best answer to this. Her being a hypocrite seems like a point that should be ignored, because even if she had sterling personal life and she followed every biblical rule to a T, she would still be wrong.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Civil disobedience's role is to highlight the unjust nature of a law.
I wonder if she would similarly resist stamping papers on a predatory mortgage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless.
Yes. Exactly. I mean, they can do so, but not just so, which brings us to:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Civil disobedience's role is to highlight the unjust nature of a law.
Exactly. The point of classic civil disobedience tactics is to voluntarily endure the unjust or unmerited punishment for breaking a law in order to highlight its injustice. If you don't voluntarily submit to the penalty, that's like trying to get a tax refund for something you never purchased.
[ September 06, 2015, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Who is a county clerks boss and why aren't they in any sort of trouble? If some new policy comes down and I refuse to do it, my boss will fire me and replace me with someone that will do it. If I'm the boss and a subordinate refuses to do it, I fire them. If I refuse to get my subordinates to do it, again I get fired by someone even higher up the food chain.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
She's an elected official. Her boss is the people she represents. She can't be fired, only impeached.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Ah, that makes sense then. Shows how much attention I have been paying to local elections. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
To be fair, while I do pride myself on researching every candidate before every primary and election, county clerk has been one of the ones that I didn't think much about until now. ("oh, that's a thing? Well, she seems nice and doesn't have a criminal record... I guess I'll vote for her")
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To me, the most outrageous thing about the Kim Davis situation is that a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky (population 23,333 in 2010) is paid $80,000 a year.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It is pretty high when you consider the fact the median income for the county is $23,000/year, with 21.3% of the population below the poverty line. But it's a managerial role, right?
What is strange is that the mayor of the principle town there - Morehead - gets paid $53,000/year. She makes substantially more money than her mayor. (who presumably has a much more difficult and time consuming job)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The mayor in my city is just a commissioner and I'm almost certain it's just a part-time job. The city manager is the top dog with all of the responsibility. Maybe they have something similar.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I may not have known that clerks were elected but I do know that elected officials, even seemingly low ranked ones have certain abilities that appointed ones do not. Some of the things I used to do between the state and the feds could not be authorized by a town manager or chief of police but a sheriff would do quite nicely. It used to be funny when a sheriff would send in a document that he had spent days trying to get a town manager's signature on only to have me tell him it was no good but he could sign it himself. Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What is strange is that the mayor of the principle town there - Morehead - gets paid $53,000/year. She makes substantially more money than her mayor. (who presumably has a much more difficult and time consuming job)
It's not strange, you're just looking at it backwards. The county clerk's jurisdiction is the entire county, of which the city is only a portion. County clerks are typically the closest thing you get to a mayor at the county level. They're responsible for not only all the record keeping, ID issuing, and registrations and licensing (including marriage licensing), they're responsible for handling elections (voter registrations, choosing and setting up the voting machinery, running the election, and recording the results), zoning permits, tax assessments and collections, and all sorts of other little stuff pertaining to the running of the county government.
It is a rather significant job with big responsibilities. Which makes it all the more terrible that she refuses to do it correctly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What is strange is that the mayor of the principle town there - Morehead - gets paid $53,000/year. She makes substantially more money than her mayor. (who presumably has a much more difficult and time consuming job)
It's not strange, you're just looking at it backwards. The county clerk's jurisdiction is the entire county, of which the city is only a portion. County clerks are typically the closest thing you get to a mayor at the county level. They're responsible for not only all the record keeping, ID issuing, and registrations and licensing (including marriage licensing), they're responsible for handling elections (voter registrations, choosing and setting up the voting machinery, running the election, and recording the results), zoning permits, tax assessments and collections, and all sorts of other little stuff pertaining to the running of the county government.
It is a rather significant job with big responsibilities. Which makes it all the more terrible that she refuses to do it correctly.
Hah, my father was mayor of a small town about the same size (served 4 terms). He did this while working as full time litigation attorney- mayors of towns this size usually have a day job.
What's weird here, in fact, is that the mayor of the town makes *so much*. A town of 7,000 typically has a city manager hired to actually run the town- the mayor is more often a council member with limited blue ribbon responsibilities.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Mike Huckabee is absolutely awful at rabble-rousing.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Huckabee's speech was playing in the work lunchroom today when I was microwaving some leftovers. He was doing the thing where a Republican says the judges are being tyrants.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Hockey causes diabetes?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you've ever had the misfortune of being young and single and in shape, you probably know what it's like to be accosted by them. I was in college during the Surge in 07, and I remember just about every day I walked on campus I'd see a pack of various service members in their dress uniforms swarming towards me with hopeful smiles on their faces, like flies towards a fresh pile of manure.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)