http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least
someone was acting rationally...
Unlike Lucy with her football, sometimes the universe lets people think for a second. And then we're back to falling on our ass when we run up to kick.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 07, 2012, 06:58:36 PM
Unlike Lucy with her football, sometimes the universe lets people think for a second. And then we're back to falling on our ass when we run up to kick.
Sometimes it's okay to cheer a bit when something good happens.
Just saying. You can be sad/angry when the shit rain starts back up. But for the time being, it's actually okay to be happy.
LMNO: Toldja it's one of those days.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
Some good news. Hard to tell if they'll appeal... if they push it, it will be decided, and they won't have it as a political platform any more...
This just in: Proposition 8 came out of the closet and can now legally marry the U.S. Supreme Court.
Personally, I oppose the legal personhood of constitutional amendments and judicial organs, but if it makes them happy, I guess that's a win for all of us.
Meh, locking people in cages without a trial beforehand is also unconstitutional, but...
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2012, 07:41:27 PM
Meh, locking people in cages without a trial beforehand is also unconstitutional, but...
Many Americans don't care nothin' for those people because they are tererists and A-rabs. The USFG continues to rob, pillage, rape, and kill in the name of their freedom and they are in support of it because state violence is perfectly justified no matter the situation or consequences.
Don't you just love this country?
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on February 08, 2012, 12:43:00 AM
Don't you just love this country?
Yes. But not in the
good way. I love it in a Kentucky/NASCAR family kind of way. While I would never abuse my spouse, I would cheerfully bounce the USA around the trailer home for a while when I get feeling ornery.
Also, the USFG? No such animal.
I'm not too excited.
Yes it's a good thing, but they've been going back and forth in California for a while over whether gays can get married and this is more likely just one more flip to the "can" side rather than the final word on the topic.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
An appeal would be a very, very risky proposition, because every time it gets moved to a higher court the jurisdiction is greater, with the possible (perhaps probable) endgame of the U.S. Supreme court declaring sex-biased marriage legislation unconstitutional. How awesome would that be?
Of course, technically I guess that wouldn't be the endgame, because then the nutjobs would petition for a Constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot... but I don't think they'd win.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 01:51:05 AM
Of course, technically I guess that wouldn't be the endgame, because then the nutjobs would petition for a Constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot... but I don't think they'd win.
And they don't want to.
Because then they'd have one less thing with which to scare the rubes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 01:56:03 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 01:51:05 AM
Of course, technically I guess that wouldn't be the endgame, because then the nutjobs would petition for a Constitutional amendment to be put on the ballot... but I don't think they'd win.
And they don't want to.
Because then they'd have one less thing with which to scare the rubes.
This is a very good point.
Also, if marriage becomes recognized as a Constitutional right, they can screech about how it's the cause of the ongoing disintegration of society.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 01:49:21 AMthe U.S. Supreme court declaring sex-based marriage legislation unconstitutional. How awesome would that be?
What I read.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2012, 07:02:07 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 07, 2012, 06:58:36 PM
Unlike Lucy with her football, sometimes the universe lets people think for a second. And then we're back to falling on our ass when we run up to kick.
Sometimes it's okay to cheer a bit when something good happens.
Just saying. You can be sad/angry when the shit rain starts back up. But for the time being, it's actually okay to be happy.
Indeed. And in fact I was happy, but not allowing myself to get too hopeful.
Because I've seen enough reality to know where that would go.
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
Some good news. Hard to tell if they'll appeal... if they push it, it will be decided, and they won't have it as a political platform any more...
Heard a report on this and it said that the decision was careful to only address Prop 8 and not gay marriage. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I'd be floored if the bigger issue of gay marriage came up. Third rail, that.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 25, 2012, 02:11:29 AM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
Some good news. Hard to tell if they'll appeal... if they push it, it will be decided, and they won't have it as a political platform any more...
Heard a report on this and it said that the decision was careful to only address Prop 8 and not gay marriage. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I'd be floored if the bigger issue of gay marriage came up. Third rail, that.
Wait... are you familiar with California's proposition 8?
Ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Full text:
QuoteSection I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It is a
little bit hard to address proposition 8 without addressing same-sex marriage.
May I ask what your level of expertise is regarding Constitutional law? I ask mainly because you seem to have a lot of interesting opinions on Constitutional law, and not being an expert myself I'm not exactly sure what to make of them.
Actually, Nigel, what they'd be attacking in court isn't Prop 8, itself. For an appeal to succeed, they'd have to prove that the district court made an error... and that's gonna be tough. Quote is from the Christian Science Monitor. (The places I'll go to research this stuff before talking...)
QuoteBut others suggest that Judge Reinhardt's opinion might have been written precisely to try to dissuade the Supreme Court from overturning it – and it could work.
In short, Reinhardt said the decision to overturn Prop. 8 was not founded on a fundamental right for gays and lesbians to marry. Rather, Reinhardt's decision was based on a 1996 Supreme Court decision, Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado law – passed by state voters – that prevented local governments from enacting measures to protect gay and lesbian residents.
The Supreme Court struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 because it "withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. So, reasoned Reinhardt, Prop. 8 also unfairly singles out gays and lesbians.
It irrationally denies them access to the term "marriage," even though they already have the legal protections of marriage through domestic-partnership laws, and it also takes away a legal right they already had, Reinhardt wrote. (Earlier in 2008, a state Supreme Court ruling had made gay marriage legal.)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0208/Prop.-8-ruling-why-it-might-not-go-to-the-Supreme-Court
The appeal would have to argue, NOT against gay marriage, but that the court was incorrect in stating that a state does not have the right to pass a law removing civil rights from a specified group of people... and THAT is going to be tough to do.
Quote from: Luna on February 25, 2012, 01:23:48 PM
Actually, Nigel, what they'd be attacking in court isn't Prop 8, itself. For an appeal to succeed, they'd have to prove that the district court made an error... and that's gonna be tough. Quote is from the Christian Science Monitor. (The places I'll go to research this stuff before talking...)
QuoteBut others suggest that Judge Reinhardt's opinion might have been written precisely to try to dissuade the Supreme Court from overturning it – and it could work.
In short, Reinhardt said the decision to overturn Prop. 8 was not founded on a fundamental right for gays and lesbians to marry. Rather, Reinhardt's decision was based on a 1996 Supreme Court decision, Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado law – passed by state voters – that prevented local governments from enacting measures to protect gay and lesbian residents.
The Supreme Court struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 because it "withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. So, reasoned Reinhardt, Prop. 8 also unfairly singles out gays and lesbians.
It irrationally denies them access to the term "marriage," even though they already have the legal protections of marriage through domestic-partnership laws, and it also takes away a legal right they already had, Reinhardt wrote. (Earlier in 2008, a state Supreme Court ruling had made gay marriage legal.)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0208/Prop.-8-ruling-why-it-might-not-go-to-the-Supreme-Court
The appeal would have to argue, NOT against gay marriage, but that the court was incorrect in stating that a state does not have the right to pass a law removing civil rights from a specified group of people... and THAT is going to be tough to do.
Actually, Luna, I understand that. Was it meant to contradict something I said? Or rather that "Actually", do you mean "Also"?
The law, Proposition 8, had verbiage which was specific to same-sex marriage. The judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to single out a certain group to strip them of civil rights. If it goes to a higher court, they would have to overturn (or more likely, uphold) that judge's ruling, which would have massive widespread ramifications for same-sex marriage nationwide
because of the nature of the proposition being disputed, even though that ruling
does not in itself legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it makes it
illegal to ban it.
Under the traditional understanding of common law, that would, in a sense, make it legal (not illegal yet not legal being more of a hallmark of the Continental system of law instituted by Napoleon), but, then, the rule of law's kinda had a rough decade, and nothing is really working the way it should anymore.
Quote from: Cain on February 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Under the traditional understanding of common law, that would, in a sense, make it legal (not illegal yet not legal being more of a hallmark of the Continental system of law instituted by Napoleon), but, then, the rule of law's kinda had a rough decade, and nothing is really working the way it should anymore.
Right... it would become de facto legal without the need for a specific law to legalize it. And then we would get to watch the clusterfuck of backwoods-assholes trying to find a way around it.
Quote from: Nigel on February 25, 2012, 02:18:03 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 25, 2012, 02:11:29 AM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
Some good news. Hard to tell if they'll appeal... if they push it, it will be decided, and they won't have it as a political platform any more...
Heard a report on this and it said that the decision was careful to only address Prop 8 and not gay marriage. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I'd be floored if the bigger issue of gay marriage came up. Third rail, that.
Wait... are you familiar with California's proposition 8?
Ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Full text:
QuoteSection I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It is a little bit hard to address proposition 8 without addressing same-sex marriage.
May I ask what your level of expertise is regarding Constitutional law? I ask mainly because you seem to have a lot of interesting opinions on Constitutional law, and not being an expert myself I'm not exactly sure what to make of them.
Been a hobby for a bit over a decade. I can count on one hand the number of cases that I've researched exhaustively, and another dozen or so that I've researched just enough to fully follow the reasoning. There's a few specific areas of interest that I would say I have, for an amateur, a high level of expertise in, and many areas that I don't even have the expertise to accurately assess my ignorance on (nor the interest to ever remedy that). My general focus is on judicial attitudes over time. I like to be able to identify when a decision is in or out of character for a particular generation of court. I'm overwhelmingly strongest in my understanding of the court from the mid 90's to present, and it's the only time-frame that I would even dare to use the word "expertise" in regards to. Historically speaking, the depression era and late 18th/early 19th century litigation is what I'm most familiar with. Just dipping my toes in reconstruction era law, currently.
The current court has a stated and demonstrated preference to answer a question as narrowly as possible, and leave the job of getting the law in line with the constitution to the legislative branch. I haven't yet read the Prop 8 decision issued by the 9th Circuit, but I looked at Prop 8 and just barely started digging into the California State Constitution before finding what could easily be an argument for striking Prop 8, under the CA Constitution alone. Tricky argument that, since Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution itself, but already there's a basis for deciding the fate of Prop 8 that's not only limited in scope to CA, but also has rendered the issue of "gay marriage" completely irrelevant to the discussion. If it took me 5 minutes to find that, I'm 99.999% certain the Supreme Court, if it even hears this case, will quite adeptly do so while avoiding any questions it would prefer not to answer.
Quote from: Nigel on February 25, 2012, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 25, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Under the traditional understanding of common law, that would, in a sense, make it legal (not illegal yet not legal being more of a hallmark of the Continental system of law instituted by Napoleon), but, then, the rule of law's kinda had a rough decade, and nothing is really working the way it should anymore.
Right... it would become de facto legal without the need for a specific law to legalize it. And then we would get to watch the clusterfuck of backwoods-assholes trying to find a way around it.
I can actually see that being Obama admin's game plan for this. It fits with his entire approach to government, so I'd be very surprised if someone there wasn't pushing this as a preferred solution to the problem (other than euthanising the entire GOP for early onset dementia).
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 25, 2012, 10:58:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 25, 2012, 02:18:03 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 25, 2012, 02:11:29 AM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 06:57:08 PM
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/07/proposition_8_constitutional_california_court_decides_tuesday.html
Quote"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
Sure, there's gonna be an appeal, but at least someone was acting rationally...
Some good news. Hard to tell if they'll appeal... if they push it, it will be decided, and they won't have it as a political platform any more...
Heard a report on this and it said that the decision was careful to only address Prop 8 and not gay marriage. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I'd be floored if the bigger issue of gay marriage came up. Third rail, that.
Wait... are you familiar with California's proposition 8?
Ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
Full text:
QuoteSection I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It is a little bit hard to address proposition 8 without addressing same-sex marriage.
May I ask what your level of expertise is regarding Constitutional law? I ask mainly because you seem to have a lot of interesting opinions on Constitutional law, and not being an expert myself I'm not exactly sure what to make of them.
Been a hobby for a bit over a decade. I can count on one hand the number of cases that I've researched exhaustively, and another dozen or so that I've researched just enough to fully follow the reasoning. There's a few specific areas of interest that I would say I have, for an amateur, a high level of expertise in, and many areas that I don't even have the expertise to accurately assess my ignorance on (nor the interest to ever remedy that). My general focus is on judicial attitudes over time. I like to be able to identify when a decision is in or out of character for a particular generation of court. I'm overwhelmingly strongest in my understanding of the court from the mid 90's to present, and it's the only time-frame that I would even dare to use the word "expertise" in regards to. Historically speaking, the depression era and late 18th/early 19th century litigation is what I'm most familiar with. Just dipping my toes in reconstruction era law, currently.
The current court has a stated and demonstrated preference to answer a question as narrowly as possible, and leave the job of getting the law in line with the constitution to the legislative branch. I haven't yet read the Prop 8 decision issued by the 9th Circuit, but I looked at Prop 8 and just barely started digging into the California State Constitution before finding what could easily be an argument for striking Prop 8, under the CA Constitution alone. Tricky argument that, since Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA constitution itself, but already there's a basis for deciding the fate of Prop 8 that's not only limited in scope to CA, but also has rendered the issue of "gay marriage" completely irrelevant to the discussion. If it took me 5 minutes to find that, I'm 99.999% certain the Supreme Court, if it even hears this case, will quite adeptly do so while avoiding any questions it would prefer not to answer.
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
The fact that it is considered normal for people to suffer just because some ignorant types say so is a never ending source of confusion for me. But beyond that, I don't know why any marriage should be any government's business. Nobody should know better than me who I want to marry, it doesn't affect anybody else, and it's certainly not any sort of political move. So why get it muddled up with all this red tape and politics? It makes just as much sense for a government to legislate who you can date, or what your favorite fast food joint is.
I mean, I know the reasons people give. They're just...not good ones.
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on February 27, 2012, 06:39:51 AM
The fact that it is considered normal for people to suffer just because some ignorant types say so is a never ending source of confusion for me. But beyond that, I don't know why any marriage should be any government's business. Nobody should know better than me who I want to marry, it doesn't affect anybody else, and it's certainly not any sort of political move. So why get it muddled up with all this red tape and politics? It makes just as much sense for a government to legislate who you can date, or what your favorite fast food joint is.
I mean, I know the reasons people give. They're just...not good ones.
I agree completely!
My position is that the state recognized Marriage as a specific type of Contract.
And attempting to prevent Gey/Lesbian/Transgender people from entering into a Contract (much like starting a business together) is totally illegal due to current anti-discrimination laws (which tightly bind the States/Fed in this area).
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
I am Doktor Howl, and I approve of this rage.
Thing is, there's rights and there's privileges. Rights are seized, and then assumed. Privileges are granted, and can be rescinded.
Rights have to apply to all citizens equally (or, in some cases, all persons), or they aren't rights. Therefore, if a Gay citizen cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice, then MY rights in this matter have reverted to privilege. That goes to any other right (speedy trial, jury trial, et al).
And I'll be damned if I allow anyone to take my rights away and hand me some allowances in their place.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
My point was that when a measure is overturned for being unconstitutional, they can't just go on and introduce more unconstitutional measures. It doesn't work that way. If it's overturned, and the decision is upheld on appeal, then that's it; the only way to prevail would be to amend the section of the Constitution that it was found to violate.
That's true in theory. However, that doesn't stop people from introducing new measures that they would argue is based on a new or different argument or premise as relates to the Constitution.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
My point was that when a measure is overturned for being unconstitutional, they can't just go on and introduce more unconstitutional measures. It doesn't work that way. If it's overturned, and the decision is upheld on appeal, then that's it; the only way to prevail would be to amend the section of the Constitution that it was found to violate.
...or try to accomplish the same thing in a different manner. Never holds, but gets tried a lot. Roe v Wade was a while ago. How many "life begins at conception" bills are floating around out there this very minute?
They want their side to win. If it were purely an objective exercise in law-making/regulations, yeah, they would read the writing on the wall and pack it in. But this is an irrational, faith-based initiative. Courts aren't going to stop them. They will keep bringing up initiatives to keep gay marriage from happening. Unfortunately, they have just enough support to fuel that fire.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 27, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
They want their side to win. If it were purely an objective exercise in law-making/regulations, yeah, they would read the writing on the wall and pack it in. But this is an irrational, faith-based initiative. Courts aren't going to stop them. They will keep bringing up initiatives to keep gay marriage from happening. Unfortunately, they have just enough support to fuel that fire.
The same battle happened inre: interracial marriages. The good guys won. We'll win again.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
My point was that when a measure is overturned for being unconstitutional, they can't just go on and introduce more unconstitutional measures. It doesn't work that way. If it's overturned, and the decision is upheld on appeal, then that's it; the only way to prevail would be to amend the section of the Constitution that it was found to violate.
...or try to accomplish the same thing in a different manner. Never holds, but gets tried a lot. Roe v Wade was a while ago. How many "life begins at conception" bills are floating around out there this very minute?
Name one battle that only had to be won once.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:13:02 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 27, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
They want their side to win. If it were purely an objective exercise in law-making/regulations, yeah, they would read the writing on the wall and pack it in. But this is an irrational, faith-based initiative. Courts aren't going to stop them. They will keep bringing up initiatives to keep gay marriage from happening. Unfortunately, they have just enough support to fuel that fire.
The same battle happened inre: interracial marriages. The good guys won. We'll win again.
Eventually, I'm sure we will, and it seems to be crawling in the right direction. But they're going to keep plugging away to try to slow or halt that crawl. They've done it here in Maine.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:13:02 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 27, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
They want their side to win. If it were purely an objective exercise in law-making/regulations, yeah, they would read the writing on the wall and pack it in. But this is an irrational, faith-based initiative. Courts aren't going to stop them. They will keep bringing up initiatives to keep gay marriage from happening. Unfortunately, they have just enough support to fuel that fire.
The same battle happened inre: interracial marriages. The good guys won. We'll win again.
Watched a documentary on Loving v Virginia the other night. Tear jerker, that. Right case, right folks, right time, right court, right slimy council for the state, even.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:13:02 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 27, 2012, 04:57:15 PM
They want their side to win. If it were purely an objective exercise in law-making/regulations, yeah, they would read the writing on the wall and pack it in. But this is an irrational, faith-based initiative. Courts aren't going to stop them. They will keep bringing up initiatives to keep gay marriage from happening. Unfortunately, they have just enough support to fuel that fire.
The same battle happened inre: interracial marriages. The good guys won. We'll win again.
This.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
My point was that when a measure is overturned for being unconstitutional, they can't just go on and introduce more unconstitutional measures. It doesn't work that way. If it's overturned, and the decision is upheld on appeal, then that's it; the only way to prevail would be to amend the section of the Constitution that it was found to violate.
...or try to accomplish the same thing in a different manner. Never holds, but gets tried a lot. Roe v Wade was a while ago. How many "life begins at conception" bills are floating around out there this very minute?
Name one battle that only had to be won once.
Annnnd this.
It's not like you ever just get to sit back and stop
striving. There is no arena of life where that works. We strive for food, shelter, love, justice, and anything else worth having in life.
I certainly don't accept the defeatist mindset, and I never will.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Annnnd this.
It's not like you ever just get to sit back and stop striving. There is no arena of life where that works. We strive for food, shelter, love, justice, and anything else worth having in life.
I certainly don't accept the defeatist mindset, and I never will.
Life is short, and everyone's gotta go sooner or later. What's important is to leave the world a little bit better than you found it.
And there's no denying that things ARE better. Every decade is a little bit nicer, in many ways, than the one before it...Just compare today with 100 years ago. Or 67 years ago, for that matter.
It might be hard to keep perspective when you're dealing with religious nuts and weird fucking teabaggers, but things are, in fact, rolling right along. Nobody ever said it was going to be quick or easy.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:34:20 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 01:26:50 AM
It has rendered gay marriage irrelevant to the conversation, but it has not rendered the conversation irrelevant to gay marriage.
Exactly. Instead of "If you're not with us, you're against us", it's "If you're not with us, you're more effectively against those against us." A part of me would love to see the Supreme Court just pull the 14th on all remaining marriage inequality states, but I gotta kinda bow to the wisdom of letting people, their states and their legislatures just kinda wake up on their own, in their own time, as seems to be happening lately. Probably be considerably less blow-back that way, plus it kind of fills me with warm fuzzy's watching all that money, time, and energy go into passing Prop 8 only to have a comparably insignificant amount of resources accomplish striking it. And by smacking down Prop 8 and only Prop 8, enough denial is left intact to allow for the possibility that I'll get to see huge amounts of money, time and energy go into passing Prop 9, 10, 11, and so on. Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be fabulous if gay marriage did to the religious right what Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union?
That's not how it works, dude.
Yeah, I know. Can't break 'em, can't end 'em, probably can't outlive 'em.
I was here in Colorado when Amendment 2 got passed (the one they used to overturn prop 8). It was vulgar. Then when it got overturned and I got to hear where a lot of people stood, it was disappointing beyond all hell. Then there was the blow back and homophobic hats and t-shirts that read shit like "Homosexuality is an abomination, and it's kind of gross, too." Then there was the ass-rape parade float. Found out where even more people stood. Teachers, principals, friends...then a couple few ways to do Amendment 2 without the Amendment 2 part. Some fizzled, some had some wheels, if I remember correctly another vote came up and Amendment 2:2 got voted down. Then I think I started hearing about other states getting in, having some "anti" progress. Fucking sucked.
Then Matthew Shephard, the candlelight vigil out in front of PVH, the fucking "how come when this happens to a gay guy the media acts all concerned?" The first punch I threw the whole fucking time...not the last. Working door at the club provided a wealth of opportunities in that regard. And then I forgot to have the rage for a minute and just broke down and asked my cousin what's been known to all since she was 2. "No, I'm not. But thanks for asking. Everybody else just assumes." That was the very, very worst one of them all. Then I kinda let it pour at my college speech classmates...infomercial style presentation "FAGGOTS, the hate you can still get without a prescription". The response was as ____ as I had hoped it would be.
...and I'm rambling, and this is making me cry, and I'm not even out the 90's. and I really wish there was an inexhaustible supply of defeat to inflict here...because when the victim starts coming out in 'em, when they start laying out the injustice done to them, when all they did was fuck with people try to spit in their eye try to fight for their right to own it again when the souls they used to be able to decimate by just being polite enough to keep their community normal anonymously Lord how much I would love to see it crushed, trampled ground into grains of no uncertain terms--these "protectors", "defenders", "shit-belching, territorial, self-righteous MORALLY UPRIGHT MISERABLE FUCKING COWARDS ALL TUCKED SNUG AND INSULATED INSIDE THEIR AMNEOTIC VOMIT SACKS OF SELF DECEPTION, SMILING, GEE POP, AWW MOM, PICTURE PERFECT NICE NORMAL EVERYDAY DISCHARGE FROM SATANS BOILY TWAT." Fucking actually spent money, spent time, spent influence, actually WORKED TO continue to fuck with people's lives. Heh. Bankrupting the mormon church is one of my more tame revenge fantasies, to be sure.
My point was that when a measure is overturned for being unconstitutional, they can't just go on and introduce more unconstitutional measures. It doesn't work that way. If it's overturned, and the decision is upheld on appeal, then that's it; the only way to prevail would be to amend the section of the Constitution that it was found to violate.
...or try to accomplish the same thing in a different manner. Never holds, but gets tried a lot. Roe v Wade was a while ago. How many "life begins at conception" bills are floating around out there this very minute?
Name one battle that only had to be won once.
Annnnd this.
It's not like you ever just get to sit back and stop striving. There is no arena of life where that works. We strive for food, shelter, love, justice, and anything else worth having in life.
I certainly don't accept the defeatist mindset, and I never will.
I got nothing for gay marriage, though. The opposition is just not...well not at all, really. These are the kind of debates that I just stop having at a certain point. Obvious versus whatever the next not really your reason you can come up with as your reason. Political "pledge", I guess. At a certain point when enough of the population feels the same way, then it's just a matter of keeping the vandals in line...those who break windows, spray paint cars, pass dumb fucking constitutional amendments, etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised if anti gay-marriage was meaningfully tucked in for the night well before reproductive rights stops chattering.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
It's not like you ever just get to sit back and stop striving. There is no arena of life where that works. We strive for food, shelter, love, justice, and anything else worth having in life.
I certainly don't accept the defeatist mindset, and I never will.
And as Discordians we also never stop
strifing!! ;-)
(sorry but it was there, looking at me)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 07:31:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Annnnd this.
It's not like you ever just get to sit back and stop striving. There is no arena of life where that works. We strive for food, shelter, love, justice, and anything else worth having in life.
I certainly don't accept the defeatist mindset, and I never will.
Life is short, and everyone's gotta go sooner or later. What's important is to leave the world a little bit better than you found it.
And there's no denying that things ARE better. Every decade is a little bit nicer, in many ways, than the one before it...Just compare today with 100 years ago. Or 67 years ago, for that matter.
It might be hard to keep perspective when you're dealing with religious nuts and weird fucking teabaggers, but things are, in fact, rolling right along. Nobody ever said it was going to be quick or easy.
Yep.
Things are pretty bad in very specific ways... change-or-die kinds of ways. But we've managed to go the change route on most things up to this point.
Homophobia is one attitude that does generally seem to be dying out. While I am of course skeptical of "progress" as a political concept, and always wary of the fact that we can regress, it would seem that, outside of a mass conversion to fundamentalist religious doctrines within the industrialized world, homosexuality is becoming widely accepted as a valid and equal sexual orientation in those areas.
Hell, some of the best loved TV presenters over here are not only openly gay, but camper than a row of tents. And given the UK has been traditionally (read: irrationally) quite homophobic in past decades, that alone is a very positive sign.
Yesterday EOT was talking about how all the under-40 guys he works with who are from conservative suburbs like Hillsboro all look like gay hipsters from the 90's. I think that as suburban America catches up with urban culture, many of the "urban hipster" values are also permeating. Younger generations are growing up with things like, well, openly gay people being around and visible and not hurting anything, so they're increasingly able to relate to them and say "this doesn't harm anyone, why should I be against it?"
Culture change happens, and I am OK with calling any culture change that results in people's rights being upheld and basic needs being met "progress".
Now we just need to work on economic progress.