Proposition 8 Decision Coming Tomorrow (8/4/2010) (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/proposition-8-decision-coming-tomorrow.html)
Quote from: TowleroadOn August 4, 2010, the court will issue its written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law following the court trial held in January and June of this year. The order will be e-filed in the court's Electronic Case Filing system, and will be immediately available thereafter through ECF and PACER. There will be no court proceeding associated with the publication of the order."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/images/2007/02/26/edith_bowman_465x370.jpg)
Update: The ruling should be out in about 3 hours. The defendants (Yes on 8 ) have filed a preliminary Motion to Stay. Meaning if Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, they don't want couples to be allowed to get married until this issue finishes it's trek through the court system, which will take years.
Prop 8 is predicted to be overturned, but if this Motion to Stay is granted, it would be devastating. :cry:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 07:05:08 PM
Update: The ruling should be out in about 3 hours. The defendants (Yes on 8 ) have filed a preliminary Motion to Stay. Meaning if Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, they don't want couples to be allowed to get married until this issue finishes it's trek through the court system, which will take years.
Prop 8 is predicted to be overturned, but if this Motion to Stay is granted, it would be devastating. :cry:
It would seem to me that if found unconstitutional then a stay will not be awarded.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 07:05:08 PM
Update: The ruling should be out in about 3 hours. The defendants (Yes on 8 ) have filed a preliminary Motion to Stay. Meaning if Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, they don't want couples to be allowed to get married until this issue finishes it's trek through the court system, which will take years.
Prop 8 is predicted to be overturned, but if this Motion to Stay is granted, it would be devastating. :cry:
It would seem to me that if found unconstitutional then a stay will not be awarded.
Not necessarily. It all depends on what the judge wants to do. The defendants are trying to say that it would cause a difficult administrative limbo if Californians (yet again) are allowed to marry for a brief window until a future court strikes down marriage again.
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 07:05:08 PM
Update: The ruling should be out in about 3 hours. The defendants (Yes on 8 ) have filed a preliminary Motion to Stay. Meaning if Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, they don't want couples to be allowed to get married until this issue finishes it's trek through the court system, which will take years.
Prop 8 is predicted to be overturned, but if this Motion to Stay is granted, it would be devastating. :cry:
It would seem to me that if found unconstitutional then a stay will not be awarded.
Not necessarily. It all depends on what the judge wants to do. The defendants are trying to say that it would cause a difficult administrative limbo if Californians (yet again) are allowed to marry for a brief window until a future court strikes down marriage again.
That may be their argument but no decent judge would allow something to stand once they have found it unconstitutional. It would fly in the face of their own ruling.
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
After a LOOOONG ass protracted argument, yes.
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:49:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
After a LOOOONG ass protracted argument, yes.
What do you think are the chances the judge will award a stay?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:51:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:49:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
After a LOOOONG ass protracted argument, yes.
What do you think are the chances the judge will award a stay?
Dan (my bil) said he won't. He'll rule for the amendment opposers and that will put it in the pro-Prop 8 camp's court.
...and just to confuse anyone else coming onto the scene further: pro-Prop8 = anti-gay marriage.
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:54:10 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:51:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:49:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
After a LOOOONG ass protracted argument, yes.
What do you think are the chances the judge will award a stay?
Dan (my bil) said he won't. He'll rule for the amendment opposers and that will put it in the pro-Prop 8 camp's court.
I certainly hope not. :|
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:54:10 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:51:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:49:37 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 08:47:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 04, 2010, 08:43:07 PM
So, I asked my former-city of SF-attorney brother in law what he thought was happening with this: he says this judge will probably find for the opponents to Prop 8 based on the unconstituionality. Then, this will get Meg Whitman elected Governator. Then, it will be brought all the way to SCOTUS and eventually thrown out.
That's his prediction, and he's pretty dead -on with this shit.
Meaning SCOTUS will throw out Prop 8?
After a LOOOONG ass protracted argument, yes.
What do you think are the chances the judge will award a stay?
Dan (my bil) said he won't. He'll rule for the amendment opposers and that will put it in the pro-Prop 8 camp's court.
That's what I thought as well, as he should. IF he finds for unconstitutionality then it could only place the burden back on the Prop 8 people.
We're officially in the decision window. The judge's ruling (and response to the Motion for Stay) could come out at any time.
(http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/westbridge/448/j-jones.jpg)
No whammy, no whammy, no whammy...
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html
And 6months to a year later they will again lose the right to marry.
I fucking hate my state.
Let the fuckers marry eachother.
ETA
And I fucking hate the Army, now I can't evne look at news about this because it seems to be flagged as LGBT....Can't be having soldiers looking at anything un-american I guess.
Here's the thing, though. In the appeal, the defense has to show what was so wrong with the previous trial and why the judge was wrong. But given how ABYSMAL the defense was in this trial, they're going to have a hell of a time convincing the next judge to change things.
So there is hope that it they will be able to marry eachother for a while yet.
Hopefully after they submit their written arguments on the sixth he denies the stay. This is a really great day for same sex couples!
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 10:00:01 PM
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
Now it's national, right? We could be looking at another
Loving-type decision.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 10:00:01 PM
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
Now it's national, right? We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.
Pretty much, yeah. The next stop is the 9th Circuit Court, and then potentially (and probably) the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 10:00:01 PM
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
Now it's national, right? We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.
:argh!:
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 11:58:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 10:00:01 PM
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
Now it's national, right? We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.
:argh!:
Um, what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2010, 12:01:09 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 11:58:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 04, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 04, 2010, 10:00:01 PM
Fuckin' A!
Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.
Now it's national, right? We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.
:argh!:
Um, what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Whoops. Bad mind tracking.
So that stay is only for while the appeals process is "sorted out" as they said on NPR, but once that is underway, let the marriages BEGIN!
What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction. Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.
If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 05, 2010, 01:53:58 AM
What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction. Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.
If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.
I was wondering how it'd dance around the whole "states rights" issue.
States rights aren't relevant in a question of whether or not an action is constitutional, see the 14th ammendment.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 05, 2010, 02:02:55 AM
States rights aren't relevant in a question of whether or not an action is constitutional, see the 14th ammendment.
Also article VI.
Quote from: Aucoq on August 05, 2010, 01:57:25 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 05, 2010, 01:53:58 AM
What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction. Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.
If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.
I was wondering how it'd dance around the whole "states rights" issue.
Um, article VI states that the constitution (in this case, amendment XIV) trumps states' rights.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 05, 2010, 02:02:55 AM
States rights aren't relevant in a question of whether or not an action is constitutional, see the 14th ammendment.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2010, 02:29:46 AM
Um, article VI states that the constitution (in this case, amendment XIV) trumps states' rights.
I was referring to how it'd cause an uproar if it went to a federal court or the SCOTUS (upsetting/enraging the people who believe states, not the federal government, should determine things like rights for homosexuals). I wasn't trying to suggest that states rights could trump the constitution. I apologize for not clarifying, or better fleshing out, my previous post. That was my fault. My last post was horribly written.
Quote from: Aucoq on August 05, 2010, 02:44:22 AM
I was referring to how it'd cause an uproar if it went to a federal court or the SCOTUS (upsetting/enraging the people who believe states, not the federal government, should determine things like rights for homosexuals).
Every major establishment of rights for minorities has been through federal action.
Each and every one.
The bigots can lump it, just like they did in
Loving vs Virginia.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2010, 02:51:07 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on August 05, 2010, 02:44:22 AM
I was referring to how it'd cause an uproar if it went to a federal court or the SCOTUS (upsetting/enraging the people who believe states, not the federal government, should determine things like rights for homosexuals).
Every major establishment of rights for minorities has been through federal action.
Each and every one.
The bigots can lump it, just like they did in Loving vs Virginia.
The world is fucked which ever way it goes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2010, 02:29:46 AM
Quote from: Aucoq on August 05, 2010, 01:57:25 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 05, 2010, 01:53:58 AM
What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction. Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.
If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.
I was wondering how it'd dance around the whole "states rights" issue.
Um, article VI states that the constitution (in this case, amendment XIV) trumps states' rights.
DoMA might be a snag in that though, unless that is also repealed. But at the very least, if the Federal Government ends up recognizing same sex marriage, they'll get Federal marriage protections too, regardless of what other states do.
Hey, you know what'd be awesome?? If our President and "fierce advocate" for the LGBT crowd would release a statement that isn't totally half-assed and uninspired.
Oh wait. His DOJ loves the motherfucking SHIT out of DOMA and DADT. So nevermind.
Fuckin hell. I literally cried on election night because I really thought we finally had an ally in the white house. Fuckin load of shit that's turned out to be.
Edit: Hold on, imma finish my drunk rant before I go crash. So, if you haven't been following gay news, during the election, Obama was all "OMG I FUKKIN LOVE GAYS LOL!" and a lot of us believed him. And he said he was against DOMA and DADT and supported civil unions.
But then he won the election. And there was a challenge to DOMA, but his DOJ defended it. And Obama was all "LOL GUYS I HAVE TO DEFEND IT COS I'M PREZ IT'S MY JOB TO DEFEND CURRENT LAWZ!". And then during his state of of union address, he said DADT will be repealed by the end of the year- and hey! It's August and no one has done SHIT on DADT. And then Obama pushed for Congress to agree to wait for the pentagon to finish their "OMG would homos in the military make you fear for the safety of your rectum???" survey, which could take years. And there's been several high profile gay discharges since he's been president.
THEN, the gay community was all "WTF? why did we waste our gay dollars on you?" and shit, so Obama was like "OMG LOLZ! SORRY!" and thought it'd patch things up if he offered benefits to same-sex partners of federal emplotees in a big public masturbatory ceremony. But when he signed that into effect, there weren't really any details of WHAT exactly these partners were gonna be getting, he just wanted to show teh gays that he was doing something for them. So then, when it came time to figure out what exactly the government could give same-sex partners of gov employees, everyone suddenly realized "OH FUCK! WE CAN'T DO SHIT BECAUSE DOMA! *FACEPALM*"
Right back to fucking DOMA. Motherfucking OUROBOROS, ya'll. Which Obama said he was against, but then defended anyways.
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x12/goatburgler/ouroboros.jpg)
And now the 2010 elections are coming up, and Obama will surely whip out his I LOVE THE GAYS cock all up in the media and shit, hoping he can win the gays over for another election cycle. But fuck that shit. His DOJ practically called us faggots in their DOMA statement. So fuck that shit. Obama can eat a bag of dicks.
After he was elected, he didn't say SHIT about Prop 8 passing. And then he had Rick Warren (huuuge ass supporter of prop 8 ) lead his swearing-in prayer. He tried to toss the homos a bone by having gay episcopal bishop Gene Robinson give a prayer at another ceremony (which couldn't be televised- LOL SORRY GUYS!).
And now, on this historic day that Prop 8 has been struck down (for now), he can't even release a motherfucking substantial statement on the issue. The white house statement was incredibly lame, and incredibly shallow, and didn't state Obama's position at all.
So ya, Obama can talk a nice game in order to get the gays support during election, but it's pretty clear he couldn't give a flying fuck about us. So fuck that shit.
Ima pass out now, and try to not let him ruin today for me.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 05, 2010, 07:00:53 AM
Hey, you know what'd be awesome?? If our President and "fierce advocate" for the LGBT crowd would release a statement that isn't totally half-assed and uninspired.
Oh wait. His DOJ loves the motherfucking SHIT out of DOMA and DADT. So nevermind.
Fuckin hell. I literally cried on election night because I really thought we finally had an ally in the white house. Fuckin load of shit that's turned out to be.
It's the political game. You say one thing but don't do anything. If you do anything, you piss someone off and they don't vote for you again.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 05, 2010, 07:00:53 AM
Hey, you know what'd be awesome?? If our President and "fierce advocate" for the LGBT crowd would release a statement that isn't totally half-assed and uninspired.
Oh wait. His DOJ loves the motherfucking SHIT out of DOMA and DADT. So nevermind.
Fuckin hell. I literally cried on election night because I really thought we finally had an ally in the white house. Fuckin load of shit that's turned out to be.
Edit: Hold on, imma finish my drunk rant before I go crash. So, if you haven't been following gay news, during the election, Obama was all "OMG I FUKKIN LOVE GAYS LOL!" and a lot of us believed him. And he said he was against DOMA and DADT and supported civil unions.
But then he won the election. And there was a challenge to DOMA, but his DOJ defended it. And Obama was all "LOL GUYS I HAVE TO DEFEND IT COS I'M PREZ IT'S MY JOB TO DEFEND CURRENT LAWZ!". And then during his state of of union address, he said DADT will be repealed by the end of the year- and hey! It's August and no one has done SHIT on DADT. And then Obama pushed for Congress to agree to wait for the pentagon to finish their "OMG would homos in the military make you fear for the safety of your rectum???" survey, which could take years. And there's been several high profile gay discharges since he's been president.
THEN, the gay community was all "WTF? why did we waste our gay dollars on you?" and shit, so Obama was like "OMG LOLZ! SORRY!" and thought it'd patch things up if he offered benefits to same-sex partners of federal emplotees in a big public masturbatory ceremony. But when he signed that into effect, there weren't really any details of WHAT exactly these partners were gonna be getting, he just wanted to show teh gays that he was doing something for them. So then, when it came time to figure out what exactly the government could give same-sex partners of gov employees, everyone suddenly realized "OH FUCK! WE CAN'T DO SHIT BECAUSE DOMA! *FACEPALM*"
Right back to fucking DOMA. Motherfucking OUROBOROS, ya'll. Which Obama said he was against, but then defended anyways.
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x12/goatburgler/ouroboros.jpg)
And now the 2010 elections are coming up, and Obama will surely whip out his I LOVE THE GAYS cock all up in the media and shit, hoping he can win the gays over for another election cycle. But fuck that shit. His DOJ practically called us faggots in their DOMA statement. So fuck that shit. Obama can eat a bag of dicks.
After he was elected, he didn't say SHIT about Prop 8 passing. And then he had Rick Warren (huuuge ass supporter of prop 8 ) lead his swearing-in prayer. He tried to toss the homos a bone by having gay episcopal bishop Gene Robinson give a prayer at another ceremony (which couldn't be televised- LOL SORRY GUYS!).
And now, on this historic day that Prop 8 has been struck down (for now), he can't even release a motherfucking substantial statement on the issue. The white house statement was incredibly lame, and incredibly shallow, and didn't state Obama's position at all.
So ya, Obama can talk a nice game in order to get the gays support during election, but it's pretty clear he couldn't give a flying fuck about us. So fuck that shit.
Ima pass out now, and try to not let him ruin today for me.
That was one helluva rant!
Obama and the Democrats will keep mindlessly screwing over the LBGT crowd so long as they slavishly donate dollars to their campaigns. Lets put it this way, if I could depend on your continued support while not having to actually do a thing to help you, including things which would go down very badly with opposition party supporters at a time when the party is split due to infighting and ideological collapse (and thus in some cases willing to hear out centrist Democrats and even support them), then I wouldn't do a thing either.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 04:09:50 PM
Obama and the Democrats will keep mindlessly screwing over the LBGT crowd so long as they slavishly donate dollars to their campaigns. Lets put it this way, if I could depend on your continued support while not having to actually do a thing to help you, including things which would go down very badly with opposition party supporters at a time when the party is split due to infighting and ideological collapse (and thus in some cases willing to hear out centrist Democrats and even support them), then I wouldn't do a thing either.
Yeah. And they've got us in a really crappy situation that pretty much guarantees our votes. Do we vote for Republicans, who flat-out say they're going to attack us, or do we vote for the Democrats, who may or may not?
Sure, there's 3rd parties. But unfortunately, it's a bit like throwing your vote away. And by not voting Democrat, you're often risking letting an explicitly anti-gay candidate win.
So the Democrats know they've got us. What are we gonna do? Of course we'll vote for them, and then they won't have to do a thing for us.
Damn dude, wish I caught the edits before I went to bed. That was fantastic in its ire.
As far as the problem of who to vote for, perhaps you could inject the idea into the gay community of not supporting Obama in the next Dem primaries, and making it known that a voting bloc within the Democratic party is forming for that particular reason. Support him if he wins the primary because he has to beat the Republican candidate but it sends a message that he has to live up to what he promises a significant group of Americans that have been shitted on for too long.
Might have the added benefit of fracturing the GOP even more if they try to scramble for the gay vote.
Don't vote for them. Self-harming is a powerful signal that you shouldn't be messed with, in certain circumstances. Get a few major LGBT organizations to boycott a couple of elections - no votes, no money, no activism at all - and they'll start to suffer enough from it to want to woo your vote back. If the GOP weren't currently made up of Christian Taliban impersonators, they'd probably also take advantage of a major bloc expressing disapproval with their own party, but they are, so it wont happen.
Also keep in mind, the Dems may be purposefully keeping the LGBT in limbo precisely to have their vote for all eternity while promising some reform at some point, maybe. I mean, once they give the community everything it demands, then there is no further reason to vote for them, except vague social expectation. Lots of gay couples have way more disposable income than straight couples (no kids) and so may prefer to vote for libertarian Republicans, for example, for the lower taxes. By never actually carrying out their promises, they are tying up votes for themselves for another generation, at least.
Note: this is politics as it is actually played, without reference to morality or any form of ethical consideration. Its about power, baby, and that means you have to use the fear of loss of power to get what you want.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 04:39:28 PM
Don't vote for them. Self-harming is a powerful signal that you shouldn't be messed with, in certain circumstances. Get a few major LGBT organizations to boycott a couple of elections - no votes, no money, no activism at all - and they'll start to suffer enough from it to want to woo your vote back. If the GOP weren't currently made up of Christian Taliban impersonators, they'd probably also take advantage of a major bloc expressing disapproval with their own party, but they are, so it wont happen.
Also keep in mind, the Dems may be purposefully keeping the LGBT in limbo precisely to have their vote for all eternity while promising some reform at some point, maybe. I mean, once they give the community everything it demands, then there is no further reason to vote for them, except vague social expectation. Lots of gay couples have way more disposable income than straight couples (no kids) and so may prefer to vote for libertarian Republicans, for example, for the lower taxes. By never actually carrying out their promises, they are tying up votes for themselves for another generation, at least.
Note: this is politics as it is actually played, without reference to morality or any form of ethical consideration. Its about power, baby, and that means you have to use the fear of loss of power to get what you want.
:mittens:
Consider that if you want to have a lasting effect on the national you may need to focus on a grassroot effort on all local levels.
Cain's got a good point.
Another interesting thing you could do is try to get Steve Gunderson to run for President. Not only is he a Republican, but he's gay himself. He won't win, most likely, but if he seems a strong enough candidate, or that his running will definitely lose the Dems their gay vote, possibly for a very long time, to the Republicans, it will light a firecracker in their ass.
Or if you're going to boycott anyway, perhaps you can throw extra power into a third party.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 05, 2010, 04:46:46 PM
and your hands if you do thisOr if you're going to boycott anyway, perhaps you can throw extra power into a third party.
Cf: Harvey Milk. Got pissed at the gay political mainstream, decided to run for office. Took him several years, but eventually he won.
Of course, look what happened to him, however.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 05, 2010, 04:46:46 PM
Cain's got a good point.
Another interesting thing you could do is try to get Steve Gunderson to run for President. Not only is he a Republican, but he's gay himself. He won't win, most likely, but if he seems a strong enough candidate, or that his running will definitely lose the Dems their gay vote, possibly for a very long time, to the Republicans, it will light a firecracker in their ass.
Or if you're going to boycott anyway, perhaps you can throw extra power into a third party.
And by you, I mean us. I already vote third party, but perhaps we can start up an gayGASM, to get a gay Republican to run for president. I'm starting to like the idea more and more, as I'm sitting here.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 05, 2010, 04:46:46 PM
and your hands if you do thisOr if you're going to boycott anyway, perhaps you can throw extra power into a third party.
Cf: Harvey Milk. Got pissed at the gay political mainstream, decided to run for office. Took him several years, but eventually he won.
Of course, look what happened to him, however.
Yeah, that sucked, but at least he won. I would have voted for him.
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
This.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
The purpose is not to have the Republican candidate win, but rather to make LGBT rights a larger priority. If it seems to the Dems that the GOP is actively trying to steal the gay vote, they may be more likely to do something. If you like to even it out, we could try and convince gay politicians from other parties to run for president in 2012 also.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:57:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
This.
The Christian Right would never allow him to win the Presidency. And like I said, it would have a fracturing effect on them to have the Log Cabins on steroids.
I think I see what you're saying here... It's a gambit: Make it look like LGBT is jumping the Dem ship by supporting a gay Rep, so that the Dems actually do something?
You'd have to convince a lot of people to play along.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:01:51 PM
I think I see what you're saying here... It's a gambit: Make it look like LGBT is jumping the Dem ship by supporting a gay Rep, so that the Dems actually do something?
You'd have to convince a lot of people to play along.
I think this could cause a lot more harm than good. It could even possibly split the LGBT community.
Not donating money is a simple enough step that I think a lot of people could get involved in.
John Aravosis (a big voice in the LGBT blogosphere) started a campaign called Don't Ask, Don't Give (http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6006/t/5410/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=727). He wants people to sign a petition saying they won't donate any money to the Democratic Party until the Employment Nondiscrimination Act is signed and DOMA and DADT are repealed. He's got some other major people involved in it, as well.
I don't think I could vote for a Republican. The Republican party in Texas wants to recriminalize gay sex and pass immigration laws similar to Arizona's. And they fucked up our textbooks. :argh!:
It is perfect politics, though. Always always ALWAYS attempt to play off the most powerful parties against each other for your personal benefit. That puts you in the position of influence, since then they are attempting to court your support, you're not giving it away for nothing.
Rule #2 of politics: make everyone pay for your support/TINSTAAFL
While I know the truth of what Cain and others say in this thread,
I also can't help but be happy and excited at this decision.
Sorry, guys, no rationality from me on this one. Just something about queers winning gets me going.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:01:51 PM
I think I see what you're saying here... It's a gambit: Make it look like LGBT is jumping the Dem ship by supporting a gay Rep, so that the Dems actually do something?
You'd have to convince a lot of people to play along.
I think this could cause a lot more harm than good. It could even possibly split the LGBT community.
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
As far as I've seen, the fags and the lezzies don't really get along very well, either.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
As far as I've seen, the fags and the lezzies don't really get along very well, either.
This confuses me.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 05:04:22 PM
It is perfect politics, though. Always always ALWAYS attempt to play off the most powerful parties against each other for your personal benefit. That puts you in the position of influence, since then they are attempting to court your support, you're not giving it away for nothing.
Rule #2 of politics: make everyone pay for your support/TINSTAAFL
This.
LMNO-
It would involve getting a lot of people to play along, and it may temporarily split the LGBT community, but what difference does that make if the Dems aren't doing anything anyway.
DU-
You wouldn't have to vote for him at all. He would likely lose in the primaries. If he doesn't I would be very surprised. It sends a dual message though, to the Dems- start doing what you say, and if he does decent in the primaries, to the GOP- you're getting too extreme.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
As far as I've seen, the fags and the lezzies don't really get along very well, either.
This confuses me.
I've never really understood it either.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
As far as I've seen, the fags and the lezzies don't really get along very well, either.
This confuses me.
I've never really understood it either.
I've always heard that, but I've never understood it. I get along with lesbians much better than other gay guys.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:13:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
As far as I've seen, the fags and the lezzies don't really get along very well, either.
This confuses me.
I've never really understood it either.
Different subcultures. Best explanation I can come up with.
Both groups are too similar, while retaining one important identity difference. Friction is bound to result.
Which is why life would be better if we were taught ALL of Shel Silverstein's poems and work, instead of just that shit about Sylvia not taking out the garbage!!
QuoteWell there's gonna be a freakers ball
Tonight at the freakers hall
And you know, you're invited one and all
Come on babies grease your lips
Grab your hats and swing your hips
Don't forget to bring your whips
We're going to the freakers ball
Blow your whistle and bang your gong
Roll up something to take along
It feels so good it must be wrong
We're freakin at the freakers ball
Where all the fags and the dykes they're boogyin' together
The leather freaks are dressed in all kinds of leather
The greatest of the sadists and the masochists too
Screaming "Please hit me, and I'll hit you"
The FBI are dancing with the junkies
All the straights, are swinging with the fogies
Across the floor and up the wall
We're freakin at the freakers ball
Yall, we're freakin at the freakers ball
Everybody's kissing each other
Brother with sister, son with mother
Smear my body up with butter
Take me to the freakers ball
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 05, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
Which is why life would be better if we were taught ALL of Shel Silverstein's poems and work, instead of just that shit about Sylvia not taking out the garbage!!
QuoteWell there's gonna be a freakers ball
Tonight at the freakers hall
And you know, you're invited one and all
Come on babies grease your lips
Grab your hats and swing your hips
Don't forget to bring your whips
We're going to the freakers ball
Blow your whistle and bang your gong
Roll up something to take along
It feels so good it must be wrong
We're freakin at the freakers ball
Where all the fags and the dykes they're boogyin' together
The leather freaks are dressed in all kinds of leather
The greatest of the sadists and the masochists too
Screaming "Please hit me, and I'll hit you"
The FBI are dancing with the junkies
All the straights, are swinging with the fogies
Across the floor and up the wall
We're freakin at the freakers ball
Yall, we're freakin at the freakers ball
Everybody's kissing each other
Brother with sister, son with mother
Smear my body up with butter
Take me to the freakers ball
:lulz:
This reminds me of Lord Cramulus and his Holy Safari.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
So then, other than trying to prop up a candidate who isn't going to win anyway, are there any foreseeble negative consequences?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
Cause in the end, they're just gay, lesbian or tranny monkeys and 'Us v. Them' doesn't care about which sex you prefer.
sometimes people who are in an oppressive philosophical structure are jealous of people who are not
What would really resolve all the tensions in the LGBTBBQOMGWTFROFL community would be an attack of flying squirrels.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
What would really resolve all the tensions in the LGBTBBQOMGWTFROFL community would be an attack of flying squirrels.
Are they ill-tempered?
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
What would really resolve all the tensions in the LGBTBBQOMGWTFROFL community would be an attack of flying squirrels.
:spit2:
:lulz:
There must be a way to make this happen
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
What would really resolve all the tensions in the LGBTBBQOMGWTFROFL community would be an attack of flying squirrels.
It's true... the Flying Rehnquist would just excite some and horrify others.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I don't get it.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 07:17:50 PM
I don't get it.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26007.0
I'm reading the Prop 8 ruling with a highlighter. It's a good read. You should check it out.
So far, this is my favorite bit. Cott was an expert witness for the plaintiffs (No on Prop 8 ) and Blankenhorn was an expert witness for the defense (Yes on Prop 8 ):
Quote from: Prop 8 RulingBoth Cott and Blankenhorn testified that California stands to benefit if it were to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion."
However.....
Quote from: Prop 8 RulingDespite the multitude of benefits identified by Blankenhorn that would flow to gays and lesbians and to American ideals were California to recognize same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn testified that the state should not recognize same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn reasoned that the benefits of same-sex marriage could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution.
What the cock is that shit? Dissonance, much?
Edit: Then later, Walker says:
Quote from: Prop 8 RulingThe testimony of Blankenhorn is unreliable. The trial evidence provides no basis for establishing that California has an interest in refusing to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.
No shit :lulz:
Some more goodies for your pleasure.
Regarding Hak-Shing William Tam, Proponent of Prop 8, secretary of the America Return To God Prayer Movement, and operator of 1man1woman.net:
Quote from: Prop 8 Ruling1man1woman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children... and because Proposition 8 will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan's hands. Tam identified NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality because he "believes what they say." Tam identified "the internet" as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.
:facepalm:
for fun, google the phrase "mormon forum", and then check out any "current events" subforum.
it's nonstop lulz, I swear. I just clicked through three or four of the things. The mormons are dividing into camps and tearing each other up. It's hysterical.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 05, 2010, 09:05:39 PM
for fun, google the phrase "mormon forum", and then check out any "current events" subforum.
it's nonstop lulz, I swear. I just clicked through three or four of the things. The mormons are dividing into camps and tearing each other up. It's hysterical.
um...can anyone register? :evil:
Quote from: Cramulus on August 05, 2010, 09:05:39 PM
for fun, google the phrase "mormon forum", and then check out any "current events" subforum.
it's nonstop lulz, I swear. I just clicked through three or four of the things. The mormons are dividing into camps and tearing each other up. It's hysterical.
Wow, Bytor2112 is kind of a douche, isn't he?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 05, 2010, 09:34:05 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 05, 2010, 09:05:39 PM
for fun, google the phrase "mormon forum", and then check out any "current events" subforum.
it's nonstop lulz, I swear. I just clicked through three or four of the things. The mormons are dividing into camps and tearing each other up. It's hysterical.
Wow, Bytor2112 is kind of a douche, isn't he?
:lulz: yes, yes he is
Sigh. I'm trying to read it, you guys, but that place is just making my blood boil.
Mr. B used the term "same sex attraction", and I nearly had a stroke.
Some time if I'm drunk enough, I'll have to write a big profanity-laced memoir of my time in a "same sex attraction" support group. :|
E: Also. The posse of white angels at the top really freaks me out.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 05, 2010, 09:50:43 PM
Sigh. I'm trying to read it, you guys, but that place is just making my blood boil.
Mr. B used the term "same sex attraction", and I nearly had a stroke.
Some time if I'm drunk enough, I'll have to write a big profanity-laced memoir of my time in a "same sex attraction" support group. :|
E: Also. The posse of white angels at the top really freaks me out.
You could troll them and describe yourself as a recovered heterosexual who, with the right amount of therapy and a supportive group, was able to get yourself out of your sinful attractions to the opposite sex. Currently homosexual or asexual status up to you.
Asexual might work. That way you are emulating the life of THE LORD Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Asexual might work. That way you are emulating the life of THE LORD Jesus Christ.
Yeah, that way, they're ALL a bunch of perverts.
Well, based on their banner, I wonder what they'd say if I told him I like black women.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 05, 2010, 10:14:22 PM
Well, based on their banner, I wonder what they'd say if I told him I like black women.
Nonsense. Tell them you have joined a splinter group and now you have 5 wives and 13 kids.
or you could really drive them nuts and tell them that now that you married a dude you now wanna marry a dog and a tree
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2010, 03:56:24 AM
or you could really drive them nuts and tell them that now that you married a dude you now wanna marry a dog and a tree
Remember i used to was a Mormon Elder for 13 years.
I KNOW WHERE THE BUTTONS IZ.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 05, 2010, 12:01:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
This:
Quote
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
made me cry.
An Elder?
Why the hell did you quit?
Space Jesus is probably pretty pissed at you right now
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
Depends on what KIND of Republican. A Nixon Republican wouldn't do any of that shit.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Thanks for saying it before I did.
Also, I hate the idea that I'm supposed to be "unified" in opinion with a bunch of other assholes just because mainstream society has conveniently categorized us as all the same
kind of freak.
That said, I've never noticed, since becoming part of "the community" (LOL) at 18, any evidence that lesbians and fags don't get along. They intermingle pretty freely around here. But then, it's Portland, where even bisexuals (former niggers of the queer community) are accepted.
Oh, and around here, it's REALLY un-PC to say anything negative or even questioning about trannies.
Quote from: Nigel on August 06, 2010, 07:18:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
A gay Republican is still a Republican.
"He might have tanked the economy with supply side economics and tax cuts, and he might have gotten us into three more useless wars, but at least he sucks cock!"
Depends on what KIND of Republican. A Nixon Republican wouldn't do any of that shit.
I agree. Republicans are a different monster now though.
All the more reason to gay them up. Their divorce from the warmongering/Christian Right is long overdue.
Quote from: Nigel on August 06, 2010, 07:24:30 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Thanks for saying it before I did.
Also, I hate the idea that I'm supposed to be "unified" in opinion with a bunch of other assholes just because mainstream society has conveniently categorized us as all the same kind of freak.
That said, I've never noticed, since becoming part of "the community" (LOL) at 18, any evidence that lesbians and fags don't get along. They intermingle pretty freely around here. But then, it's Portland, where even bisexuals (former niggers of the queer community) are accepted.
Oh, and around here, it's REALLY un-PC to say anything negative or even questioning about trannies.
Likewise here.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2010, 06:00:57 AM
An Elder?
Why the hell did you quit?
Space Jesus is probably pretty pissed at you right now
In Mormon elder means well dressed teenager. It's not exactly prestigious.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 06, 2010, 03:58:03 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2010, 03:56:24 AM
or you could really drive them nuts and tell them that now that you married a dude you now wanna marry a dog and a tree
Remember i used to was a Mormon Elder for 13 years.
I KNOW WHERE THE BUTTONS IZ.
Wait, you were an elder and you quit? Is the stuff about magic underwear true?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 06, 2010, 08:41:50 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2010, 06:00:57 AM
An Elder?
Why the hell did you quit?
Space Jesus is probably pretty pissed at you right now
In Mormon elder means well dressed teenager. It's not exactly prestigious.
Those are just the ones on missions. lol, I was in the bishopric of my ward.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 06, 2010, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 06, 2010, 03:58:03 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2010, 03:56:24 AM
or you could really drive them nuts and tell them that now that you married a dude you now wanna marry a dog and a tree
Remember i used to was a Mormon Elder for 13 years.
I KNOW WHERE THE BUTTONS IZ.
Wait, you were an elder and you quit? Is the stuff about magic underwear true?
Not magic, sacred. And the only ones who can wear them are the ones who are worthy to enter the temple.
Back on topic, apparently the "expert" witnesses for the pro-8 side didn't meet the standards the judge required to have their opinions considered. (http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/)
QuoteWalker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 06, 2010, 02:25:24 PM
Back on topic, apparently the "expert" witnesses for the pro-8 side didn't meet the standards the judge required to have their opinions considered. (http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/)
QuoteWalker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."
On top of that, both Miller and Blankenhorn admitted on the stand that having the right to marry would benefit gays and lesbians, and that there isn't a non-religious, non-moral reason for denying them.
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 06, 2010, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 06, 2010, 02:25:24 PM
Back on topic, apparently the "expert" witnesses for the pro-8 side didn't meet the standards the judge required to have their opinions considered. (http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/)
QuoteWalker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."
On top of that, both Miller and Blankenhorn admitted on the stand that having the right to marry would benefit gays and lesbians, and that there isn't a non-religious, non-moral reason for denying them.
Way to play for the other team, heroes. :lulz:
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 06, 2010, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 06, 2010, 02:25:24 PM
Back on topic, apparently the "expert" witnesses for the pro-8 side didn't meet the standards the judge required to have their opinions considered. (http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/)
QuoteWalker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."
On top of that, both Miller and Blankenhorn admitted on the stand that having the right to marry would benefit gays and lesbians, and that there isn't a non-religious, non-moral reason for denying them.
Well, at least they were honest... shot the whole thing in the foot... but they didn't lie.
Well, they didn't exactly offer those opinions -- apparently, the cross-examination was brilliant and brutal, and more or less forced them to admit it.
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-reactions-prop-8-decision
Quote"Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance."
If you consider what marriage actually was historically, that is fucking hilarious
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 08, 2010, 05:46:37 AM
Quote"Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance."
If you consider what marriage actually was historically, that is fucking hilarious
hehe, that made me laugh.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 08, 2010, 05:36:22 AM
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-reactions-prop-8-decision
"Undergrids" is a word? :lulz:
Today's Complicated Semi-Victory
All the gay blogs are excited, kind of, about today's ruling by Judge Walker. He was ruling on the Prop 8 Proponents' Motion to Stay. This Motion to Stay was essentially asking Judge Walker to NOT allow same-sex marriages until they've had the chance to appeal. They wrote a request for a stay, and the Governor and AG (the actual defendants in the case) and the plaintiffs (NO on Prop 8 ) wrote requests that a stay not be granted, meaning that marriages should begin immediately.
Judge Walker ruled that the Motion to Stay should NOT be granted, BUT marriage licenses should not be distributed unless the next court (the 9th Circuit Court) doesn't act by next Wednesday (8/18) at 5 p.m. This gives the proponents time to appeal.
When they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the Court will decide if A) The Motion to Stay should be granted (ie marriages no allowed until the entire appeals process is completed) and B) If they want to hear the appeal.
If they refuse on both, marriages will take place.
If they refuse on both, then Proponents will ask the Supreme Court for those same two things. A Motion to Stay and a chance to appeal.
Essentially, in the next few days we will find out if couples may marry NOW, or if they will have to wait several years for the appeals process to finish (and then potentially lose the right to marry if a higher court rules against Judge Walker).
HOWEVER... There is some question that the appeals court will not want to hear an appeal because the Proponents of Prop 8 a were not the official defendants in the trial. They may not have the standing to appeal.
Further, they must prove to the appeals court that NOT issuing a Stay somehow negatively affects the Defendants (who actually against a Stay).
Very complicated and confusing. The next few days will be intense.
I've read this entire thread and I have something to say:
lol.
I've never understood social conservatives except in the realm of wanting to educate their children to avoid people who have a drug problem and maybe hope to keep them from getting hpv.. (or at least pass the responsibility of educating them about these dangers on to the state) not to confuse that concern with a well controlled and moderated enjoyment of drugs, but a drug PROBLEM..
if I was being honest, and I try to be, I say faggots marrying is the best thing that could happen to the planet.
They can (potentially) adopt children out of the ever tragic orphanage system..
They are DINK's unless they adopt and provide an excellent model of how to arrive at an alternate income through asset management. not all, of course, because absolutes are never correct. (lol)
they cannot reproduce (normally... yes I know there are artificial ways) and do not contribute to the predictable over population of the planet.
"the fall of mankind will be it's inability to understand the exponential factor." -- some math guy, who's lectures I like, but can't be bothered to search for because I'm going to do my best to find my way to my bed after I click 'post'
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 13, 2010, 01:01:48 AM
Today's Complicated Semi-Victory
All the gay blogs are excited, kind of, about today's ruling by Judge Walker. He was ruling on the Prop 8 Proponents' Motion to Stay. This Motion to Stay was essentially asking Judge Walker to NOT allow same-sex marriages until they've had the chance to appeal. They wrote a request for a stay, and the Governor and AG (the actual defendants in the case) and the plaintiffs (NO on Prop 8 ) wrote requests that a stay not be granted, meaning that marriages should begin immediately.
Judge Walker ruled that the Motion to Stay should NOT be granted, BUT marriage licenses should not be distributed unless the next court (the 9th Circuit Court) doesn't act by next Wednesday (8/18) at 5 p.m. This gives the proponents time to appeal.
When they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the Court will decide if A) The Motion to Stay should be granted (ie marriages no allowed until the entire appeals process is completed) and B) If they want to hear the appeal.
If they refuse on both, marriages will take place.
If they refuse on both, then Proponents will ask the Supreme Court for those same two things. A Motion to Stay and a chance to appeal.
Essentially, in the next few days we will find out if couples may marry NOW, or if they will have to wait several years for the appeals process to finish (and then potentially lose the right to marry if a higher court rules against Judge Walker).
HOWEVER... There is some question that the appeals court will not want to hear an appeal because the Proponents of Prop 8 a were not the official defendants in the trial. They may not have the standing to appeal.
Further, they must prove to the appeals court that NOT issuing a Stay somehow negatively affects the Defendants (who actually against a Stay).
Very complicated and confusing. The next few days will be intense.
There's also rumors floating around that the defendants don't want to push this all the way to the Supreme Court because it wouldn't just invalidate Prop 8, it will invalidate the anti-gay marriage amendments that 30 other states passed. They might just cut their losses and sacrifice California in order to save the other states.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 13, 2010, 06:10:20 AM
Quote from: DiscoUkulele on August 13, 2010, 01:01:48 AM
Today's Complicated Semi-Victory
All the gay blogs are excited, kind of, about today's ruling by Judge Walker. He was ruling on the Prop 8 Proponents' Motion to Stay. This Motion to Stay was essentially asking Judge Walker to NOT allow same-sex marriages until they've had the chance to appeal. They wrote a request for a stay, and the Governor and AG (the actual defendants in the case) and the plaintiffs (NO on Prop 8 ) wrote requests that a stay not be granted, meaning that marriages should begin immediately.
Judge Walker ruled that the Motion to Stay should NOT be granted, BUT marriage licenses should not be distributed unless the next court (the 9th Circuit Court) doesn't act by next Wednesday (8/18) at 5 p.m. This gives the proponents time to appeal.
When they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the Court will decide if A) The Motion to Stay should be granted (ie marriages no allowed until the entire appeals process is completed) and B) If they want to hear the appeal.
If they refuse on both, marriages will take place.
If they refuse on both, then Proponents will ask the Supreme Court for those same two things. A Motion to Stay and a chance to appeal.
Essentially, in the next few days we will find out if couples may marry NOW, or if they will have to wait several years for the appeals process to finish (and then potentially lose the right to marry if a higher court rules against Judge Walker).
HOWEVER... There is some question that the appeals court will not want to hear an appeal because the Proponents of Prop 8 a were not the official defendants in the trial. They may not have the standing to appeal.
Further, they must prove to the appeals court that NOT issuing a Stay somehow negatively affects the Defendants (who actually against a Stay).
Very complicated and confusing. The next few days will be intense.
There's also rumors floating around that the defendants don't want to push this all the way to the Supreme Court because it wouldn't just invalidate Prop 8, it will invalidate the anti-gay marriage amendments that 30 other states passed. They might just cut their losses and sacrifice California in order to save the other states.
Too bad for that... but we'll see.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
By "tranny" do you mean transsexual or travestite? Cause Urban Dictionary says it can mean both. But sometimes travestites are gay guys dressing up as female cause they feel like it, not because they want to be a woman. Are they stepped on by the rest of the LGBTPH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH IA IA FHTAGHN community too? [cause afaik here they mostly aren't, although I'm not too familiar with those subcultures myself]
BAAW! WE CAIN'T PREEDICT THE FYOOTCHER!!
It's the best of the arguments that the National Review can scrape off the floor of Walker's courtroom. Of everything that they could write an article about, they thought this was the strongest point:
Quote
Walker: "I'm asking you to tell me how it [same-sex marriage] would harm opposite-sex marriages."...
Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know.
[More back and forth]
Cooper: "Well, your Honor, by—by saying that the state and its electorate are entitled, when dealing with radical proposals for change to a bedrock institution such as this, to move with incrementally, to move with caution, and to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Keep in mind, your Honor, this same-sex marriage is a very recent innovation. Its implications of a social and cultural nature, not to mention its impact on marriage over time, can't possibly be known now."
So Walker's purported finding of fact is not only not meaningfully supported by the evidence that he cites; it's contradicted by the testimony of plaintiffs' own expert.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243159/judge-walkers-phony-finding-versus-defendants-modesty-about-predicting-future-ed-
(http://imgur.com/dcTED.jpg)
To be fair, Ed Whelan is like the coffee boy of NRO. He hasn't mastered the art of mangling logic like Jonah Goldberg, or mangling the English language (which can appear like the former distorted logic) like Kathryn Lopez.
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2010, 10:03:12 AM
To be fair, Ed Whelan is like the coffee boy of NRO. He hasn't mastered the art of mangling logic like Jonah Goldberg, or mangling the English language (which can appear like the former distorted logic) like Kathryn Lopez.
Usually they can cough up something more compelling and interesting than, "the future is all unknowable and shit!" though.
It seems like the NRO is trying to do the old attack-your-enemy's-strengths strategy but forgot about the whole tactical angle.
One of the funniest articles they've put out in a while. I can't wait to tell more people about this and use it on unsuspecting conservatards.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2010, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
By "tranny" do you mean transsexual or travestite? Cause Urban Dictionary says it can mean both. But sometimes travestites are gay guys dressing up as female cause they feel like it, not because they want to be a woman. Are they stepped on by the rest of the LGBTPH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH IA IA FHTAGHN community too? [cause afaik here they mostly aren't, although I'm not too familiar with those subcultures myself]
The term is used interchangeably here to some degree, though I think Kai means transgender here. Drag Queens are generally accepted entertainers in the gay sub-culture. As far as heterosexuals go, I get the sense that Drag Queens are looked at funny in a certain comical sense, because, well, a dude in a dress is pretty funny, whereas a dude who wants to become a chick elicits a "WTF?!?!?! BUT IT'S YOUR DICK!!! WHY?!?!?" response. I imagine it's kinda the same occasionally with gay men, cuz, you know, they're pretty attached to their dicks too. It's a guy thing.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 13, 2010, 12:59:03 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2010, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
By "tranny" do you mean transsexual or travestite? Cause Urban Dictionary says it can mean both. But sometimes travestites are gay guys dressing up as female cause they feel like it, not because they want to be a woman. Are they stepped on by the rest of the LGBTPH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH IA IA FHTAGHN community too? [cause afaik here they mostly aren't, although I'm not too familiar with those subcultures myself]
The term is used interchangeably here to some degree, though I think Kai means transgender here. Drag Queens are generally accepted entertainers in the gay sub-culture. As far as heterosexuals go, I get the sense that Drag Queens are looked at funny in a certain comical sense, because, well, a dude in a dress is pretty funny, whereas a dude who wants to become a chick elicits a "WTF?!?!?! BUT IT'S YOUR DICK!!! WHY?!?!?" response. I imagine it's kinda the same occasionally with gay men, cuz, you know, they're pretty attached to their dicks too. It's a guy thing.
Yeah, transgender. Drag Queens (and kings) are gays and lesbians who do it mostly as entertainment for themselves and others. It's genderfucking dressup.
"but it's your dick" is about the least of the responses available. "Fake man" or "fake woman", "pedophile/child molester", "abberation onto god", "someone who deserves to be fucked" (as in, queer dressing is advertising for masochistic sex). Transmen get the whole "breaking femininity" and "traitor to the sex wars" and "changing for male privelege" thing. Oh, and they also "deserve to be fucked as a woman".
Or people don't say anything but laugh or beat the shit of of the person and/or rape them.
Quote from: Kai on August 13, 2010, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on August 13, 2010, 12:59:03 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2010, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
By "tranny" do you mean transsexual or travestite? Cause Urban Dictionary says it can mean both. But sometimes travestites are gay guys dressing up as female cause they feel like it, not because they want to be a woman. Are they stepped on by the rest of the LGBTPH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH IA IA FHTAGHN community too? [cause afaik here they mostly aren't, although I'm not too familiar with those subcultures myself]
The term is used interchangeably here to some degree, though I think Kai means transgender here. Drag Queens are generally accepted entertainers in the gay sub-culture. As far as heterosexuals go, I get the sense that Drag Queens are looked at funny in a certain comical sense, because, well, a dude in a dress is pretty funny, whereas a dude who wants to become a chick elicits a "WTF?!?!?! BUT IT'S YOUR DICK!!! WHY?!?!?" response. I imagine it's kinda the same occasionally with gay men, cuz, you know, they're pretty attached to their dicks too. It's a guy thing.
Yeah, transgender. Drag Queens (and kings) are gays and lesbians who do it mostly as entertainment for themselves and others. It's genderfucking dressup.
"but it's your dick" is about the least of the responses available. "Fake man" or "fake woman", "pedophile/child molester", "abberation onto god", "someone who deserves to be fucked" (as in, queer dressing is advertising for masochistic sex). Transmen get the whole "breaking femininity" and "traitor to the sex wars" and "changing for male privelege" thing. Oh, and they also "deserve to be fucked as a woman".
Or people don't say anything but laugh or beat the shit of of the person and/or rape them.
Yeah, I suppose, but I'm a Masshole. Up here I guess it's a little more accepted, but more along the lines of, "Uh.... ok...."
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2010, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 05, 2010, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:08:31 PM
It's already split, CB. There never was an "LGBT community", rather, the fags and lesbos hate on the bisexuals and queers, and everyone hates on the trannies. It's the southern white sharecropper's racism, taken to a different issue. Really fucking sad.
Yeah, I think the "LGBT community" is more of a convention for the advocacy and social service organizations that try to serve those people. I'm just basing this upon my experiences partnering with those groups on substance abuse prevention efforts. And now, depending on the group you are working with, it's now called the LGBTQQIA Community
Yeah, that's basically it. Been stamped on because you're gay? Well, at least you're not a tranny! But it suits your interest to /pretend/ like everyone is included for the advocacy groups.
By "tranny" do you mean transsexual or travestite? Cause Urban Dictionary says it can mean both. But sometimes travestites are gay guys dressing up as female cause they feel like it, not because they want to be a woman. Are they stepped on by the rest of the LGBTPH'NGLUI MGLW'NAFH IA IA FHTAGHN community too? [cause afaik here they mostly aren't, although I'm not too familiar with those subcultures myself]
Sometimes transvestites are straight guys dressed up like women cause they feel like it too.
Ok you want loony,,, like just wft? loony
read this
prop 8 = slavery and bankruptcy = stupid impossible to respond to
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Advocating-morality-doesn_t-make-people-bigoted-1008673-100291954.html
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 13, 2010, 11:04:14 PM
Ok you want loony,,, like just wft? loony
read this
prop 8 = slavery and bankruptcy = stupid impossible to respond to
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Advocating-morality-doesn_t-make-people-bigoted-1008673-100291954.html
Just for clarification, "Age of Aquarius generation" = "them damn hippies", right?
"Age of Aquarius generation" = "them damn hippies who didn't let me have any of the free sex cause I have a religious pickle up my ass"
CNN) – Former chairman of the Republican National Committee and 2004 campaign manager for President Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, has told The Atlantic magazine he is gay.
The article published Wednesday by The Atlantic's politics editor Marc Ambinder quotes Mehlman extensively on his experience coming out to friends and family.
"The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago," the article quotes Mehlman as saying.
Mehlman goes on to tell Ambinder that now that he is in private life wants to be an advocate for gay marriage.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Imagine, NOW he wants to support gay marriage.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/
Full article.
You know, I'll actually give him some kudos for publicly coming out like this and publicly throwing support behind gay marriage. Yeah, it would've been nice if he had done better back when he was in a position of influence. And he's probably still overall a big toolbox. But really, the guy has nothing to gain from this in terms of his GOP colleagues. I can only imagine the nasty letters and e-mails he's going to receive now.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 26, 2010, 02:02:16 PM
You know, I'll actually give him some kudos for publicly coming out like this and publicly throwing support behind gay marriage. Yeah, it would've been nice if he had done better back when he was in a position of influence. And he's probably still overall a big toolbox. But really, the guy has nothing to gain from this in terms of his GOP colleagues. I can only imagine the nasty letters and e-mails he's going to receive now.
Oh, I agree with you. I still think it's funny though, after all, he was a staunch supporter of Prop 8.
I think his coming out as Gay hurts gays. But I've never been much of a fan of log cabin republicans (more so than some other sorts of republicans, but they still want to screw over the poor, so the fact they want the freedom to bugger one another doesn't really endear them to me)
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 26, 2010, 01:50:23 PM
CNN) – Former chairman of the Republican National Committee and 2004 campaign manager for President Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, has told The Atlantic magazine he is gay.
The article published Wednesday by The Atlantic's politics editor Marc Ambinder quotes Mehlman extensively on his experience coming out to friends and family.
"The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago," the article quotes Mehlman as saying.
Mehlman goes on to tell Ambinder that now that he is in private life wants to be an advocate for gay marriage.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Imagine, NOW he wants to support gay marriage.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/
Full article.
Makes perfect sense to me. Homosexual tendencies lead to self-hating actions in this culture.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 02:15:40 PM
I think his coming out as Gay hurts gays. But I've never been much of a fan of log cabin republicans (more so than some other sorts of republicans, but they still want to screw over the poor, so the fact they want the freedom to bugger one another doesn't really endear them to me)
Thanks a lot!!! :argh!:
Now I can't get the phrase of Uncle Cock Republicans to go away.
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
:mittens:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
He and Ms. Cheney and the Log Cabin GOPers.... but at the end of the day, they're still backing a political party that is crazy. I understand if they like the political philosophy of conservatism, but the GOP? That's just nutty.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
Equal rights is a political ideology. Liberals getting over fighting for the rights of gays to screw and marry who they please would not be a good thing.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
Equal rights is a political ideology. Liberals getting over fighting for the rights of gays to screw and marry who they please would not be a good thing.
THIS.
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
IAWTC!
Democrats say a lot and deliver little.
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
Since when are the democrats liberals?
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
Don't confuse Democrats with (American) Liberals. Not all of them are; in fact, most are not. They espouse Liberal ideals to get elected, but rarely have the conviction to follow through, and by the time they are up for reelection, they have the not-inconsiderable power of the incumbent, which allows them to get the apathetic Democrat and unaligned voters, which is enough to get them re-elected most of the time.
True Liberals don't go to Washington, because Washington isn't liberal. True Liberals rarely even go to their state capitals, because those aren't liberal either. The True Liberals fight the court battles, because that is where the fight gets settled. Not a whole lot can overturn a Supreme Court decision, but legislation can be revoked at anytime.
We're now doing True Scotsman arguments?
And besides, who do liberals in America keep voting for, again?
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:19:51 PM
We're now doing True Scotsman arguments?
And besides, who do liberals in America keep voting for, again?
Unfortunately they always seem to voting against something, or someone, from George Bush to Sarah Palin
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:19:51 PM
We're now doing True Scotsman arguments?
And besides, who do liberals in America keep voting for, again?
I vote for the Green party, when available, or occasionally the rare Socialist. I vote Democrat if it's a Dem/GOP choice. THough next time, I just might write in a candidate.
Depends on where and who and many other things. Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarians, Ralph Nader, not at all, and many others, I'm sure.
Sometimes you fall for the hype. Sometimes you pick and choose which issues are most important. Sometimes you pick the lesser of two evils. Sometimes your guy or gal, as the case may be, sells out. Sometimes your guy or gal can't/won't nut up and take a stand. Sometimes you think it's all a waste and don't do it. Voting isn't the real issue though.
Well I certainly see a lot of Green party and socialist politicians in Congress :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:37:07 PM
Well I certainly see a lot of Green party and socialist politicians in Congress :lulz:
If more Americans were worried about voting for issues rather than voting against the enemy, you would.
Edit- You see more of them on a municipal or state level. The Dems and Republicans kinda have a monopoly on national level politics.
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:37:07 PM
Well I certainly see a lot of Green party and socialist politicians in Congress :lulz:
Thats cause their all Islamo-fascist commies
:eek:
My opinion of the American system (and this is in no way a fully thought out hypothesis, so take as it is and Im perfectly willing to be shown Im full of crap here) is that the media and the political system has morphed to such a degree that most voters don't so much vote when they cast their ballet but when they pledge allegiance to a media outlet.
The rest of the population (the swing voters) are just going to vote to where the momentum is.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
Equal rights is a political ideology. Liberals getting over fighting for the rights of gays to screw and marry who they please would not be a good thing.
Sure, but that wasn't what I said. "the rest of the population" means
all people who treat gays as somehow "other", for whatever reason or end, liberals and conservatives alike.
When homosexuality is so familiar that it is becomes a part of the two biggest political parties, then it will be increasingly more difficult to legislate against them, regardless of who is in office.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
His coming out as gay might hurt liberals who want to hold all ownership of the gay banner as if it were a political ideology and not what people do with their genitals, but not the gay movement. The fact that gays can hold any political theory, religious principle, or ideological philosophy is a net benefit in making the rest of the population get over it, already.
Equal rights is a political ideology. Liberals getting over fighting for the rights of gays to screw and marry who they please would not be a good thing.
Sure, but that wasn't what I said. "the rest of the population" means all people who treat gays as somehow "other", for whatever reason or end, liberals and conservatives alike.
When homosexuality is so familiar that it is becomes a part of the two biggest political parties, then it will be increasingly more difficult to legislate against them, regardless of who is in office.
openly becomes a part of the two biggest political parties,
I think it is already there, but kept in the closet.
Oh, yeah. Of course. My comments started from the GWB aide who came out, and someone saying that it was "a bad thing for gays".
Fags are everywhere. They believe in just as much absurd bullshit as anyone else. They don't have any majick powers.
Other than to crown me King of the Bears, of course.
Your Highness!
Do you get a royal coach pulled by motorcycles for that job?
IT'S NOT A JOB, IT'S AN ADVENTURE.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 08:52:44 PM
IT'S NOT A JOB, IT'S AN ADVENTURE.
Do you still get the coach though? Could be kinda fun.
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
I wasn't talking about Liberal politicians. I was talking about Liberal activists.
Semantics. Please continue to ignore the real event.
Oho...LORDY! I'm watching a new-to-me documentary called "Outrage" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/)--it's awesomesauce. About the outing of GOP leaders who have been anti-gay but living a double lifestyle. As gay men.
Ohhhh LORDY!
If any of you have HBO, try and catch it.
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 11:37:10 PM
Oho...LORDY! I'm watching a new-to-me documentary called "Outrage" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/)--it's awesomesauce. About the outing of GOP leaders who have been anti-gay but living a double lifestyle. As gay men.
Ohhhh LORDY!
If any of you have HBO, try and catch it.
Yes, I'm quoting myself. They out this guy (SPOILER ALERT!!!!!):
(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/original/shepsmith.jpg)
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 11:37:10 PM
Oho...LORDY! I'm watching a new-to-me documentary called "Outrage" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/)--it's awesomesauce. About the outing of GOP leaders who have been anti-gay but living a double lifestyle. As gay men.
Ohhhh LORDY!
If any of you have HBO, try and catch it.
Heard about that but haven't seen it yet. I think more gay GOPs need to be outed. From what I've heard Melhman being gay was an open secret in DC. Why the fuck didn't anyone step up and say something when he was actively pushing Prop 8 and DOMA? Yes, I know that outing someone against their will is considered very taboo but when politicians (and preachers) are pushing hard to take away rights from homosexuals someone needs to step up and say something.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 28, 2010, 02:50:46 AM
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 11:37:10 PM
Oho...LORDY! I'm watching a new-to-me documentary called "Outrage" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/)--it's awesomesauce. About the outing of GOP leaders who have been anti-gay but living a double lifestyle. As gay men.
Ohhhh LORDY!
If any of you have HBO, try and catch it.
Heard about that but haven't seen it yet. I think more gay GOPs need to be outed. From what I've heard Melhman being gay was an open secret in DC. Why the fuck didn't anyone step up and say something when he was actively pushing Prop 8 and DOMA? Yes, I know that outing someone against their will is considered very taboo but when politicians (and preachers) are pushing hard to take away rights from homosexuals someone needs to step up and say something.
Silly. Because he was doing the
RIGHT thing. Damn, I have to teach you kids everything.
He's apparently in favor of gay marriage now. Maybe he just didn't want to make the commitment before. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 05:02:14 PM
Liberals are fighting for those rights? Looks like they promise to fight for those rights, get into power and say "whoops, we talked with the GOP, because bipatisanship and stuff, and it's not really feasible right now. Maybe once we've balanced the budget, won the war on terror, ended the recession and give every American child a puppy we can get around to solving your problem." At least at the Congressional/Executive level.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/02/parties/index.html
Quote(1) Huffington Post's Sam Stein notes the increasing number of conservatives who now advocate same-sex marriage; how that places them to the left on this human rights issue of Barack Obama, who continues to explicitly oppose marriage equality; and how Democratic operatives are worrying that the Party, as a result, risks losing the devotion of gay activists and, especially, their money.
Way to call that one. I wonder if that sort of attitude will start becoming mainstream.
http://www.slate.com/id/2296862/pagenum/all/
The judge who threw out Prop 8 and then retired is now "too gay to judge."
Nice one, Mormon-backed/based "ProtectMarriage," but yeah...that shit's so bigoted it ain't funny.
How can they even pretend that makes sense?
They've got GOD on their side. Why do they need to make sense?
This is why I have so much fun fucking with Mormons.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 02:08:27 AM
This is why I have so much fun fucking with Mormons.
I need to start doing that more.
Though I don't know many.
Quote from: Jenne on June 15, 2011, 02:14:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 02:08:27 AM
This is why I have so much fun fucking with Mormons.
I need to start doing that more.
Though I don't know many.
You can't swing a dead cat around this motherfucker without knocking 3 Mormons over. It's a crying shame, is what it is.
Quote from: Jenne on June 15, 2011, 02:14:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 02:08:27 AM
This is why I have so much fun fucking with Mormons.
I need to start doing that more.
Though I don't know many.
http://mormon.org/chat/
Thats what I love about the internet, now instaed of sitting around and waiting for idiots to come to me I can go to them.
I pity those poor folks stuck with the job of troll punching bag.