Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

LGBTT: It's Raining DOMA Rulings! (It's for Thread)

FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
edited July 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
So apparently, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

Document here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101669398/Pederson

Best article right now is probably huff or TPM: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bush_appointee_rules_doma_unconstitutional.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

It violates the Fifth Amendment and so on, and is obviously expected to be appealed.

Out of curiosity, could DOMA be sued under different provisions for military families trying to get benefits, or what? Is that a thing that will happen?

Fencingsax on
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
«134567100

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    So what's the other T for?

  • agoajagoaj Avatar avatar avatar HD Avatar of the Year EditionRegistered User regular
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I have a question, whenever I read about the Chick-fil-a situation the articles always just say something vague like "they are donating money to anti-gay organizations."
    What the heck do these organization do?

    The big one, of course, is campaign against same sex marriage. They also push fraudulent "therapies" to "cure" homosexuality, press for laws prohibiting teachers to discuss orientation in schools, and defend homophobic bullying and abuse under the guise of religious freedom.

    And that's just for starters.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    So what's the other T for?

    Tatersalad, because god knows you can't have a party without it.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Since it's shockingly looking like Roberts actually has sanity on some issues I think the supreme court will strike it down if it gets there too. He doesn't want his legacy to just be Citizens, and he knows where history is going and doesn't want to be remembered as the Dredd Scott court on gay rights

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    It's for Thread. So there we go. No confusion now.

    Fencingsax on
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Since it's shockingly looking like Roberts actually has sanity on some issues I think the supreme court will strike it down if it gets there too. He doesn't want his legacy to just be Citizens, and he knows where history is going and doesn't want to be remembered as the Dredd Scott court on gay rights

    Well we know it'll be a 5-4 decision hinging on Roberts not being retarded.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well we know it'll be a 5-4 decision hinging on Roberts not being retarded.

    After his ruling on the ACA I expect Roberts will at least consider flipping every so often and siding with the Liberals now. He's already a RINO to the Republican party so there's no point in attempting to placate them anymore. I would think that means there's a good chance he might go for Gay Marriage and rule against DOMA.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Mmmm... Cocks...Mmmm... Cocks... Registered User regular
    I have a question, whenever I read about the Chick-fil-a situation the articles always just say something vague like "they are donating money to anti-gay organizations."
    What the heck do these organization do?

    The big one, of course, is campaign against same sex marriage. They also push fraudulent "therapies" to "cure" homosexuality, press for laws prohibiting teachers to discuss orientation in schools, and defend homophobic bullying and abuse under the guise of religious freedom.

    And that's just for starters.
    I've heard of a fair amount of these. Would they have their money in all of them? I guess they were tossing around.. what was it, millions?

    Are there large popular ones that have sites? I want to peek into the lions den.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    It was rumored Truett Cathy donated up to $150 million to groups that championed anti-gay platforms.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well we know it'll be a 5-4 decision hinging on Roberts not being retarded.

    After his ruling on the ACA I expect Roberts will at least consider flipping every so often and siding with the Liberals now. He's already a RINO to the Republican party so there's no point in attempting to placate them anymore. I would think that means there's a good chance he might go for Gay Marriage.

    Or you can look at what he did to preserve ACA and do the same thing to preserve DOMA, saying its the place of the court to protect popularly passed legislation even if its unpopular.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Since it's shockingly looking like Roberts actually has sanity on some issues I think the supreme court will strike it down if it gets there too. He doesn't want his legacy to just be Citizens, and he knows where history is going and doesn't want to be remembered as the Dredd Scott court on gay rights

    The quick John Roberts decision tree:

    How will this law affect corporations? -> Positively -> CONSTITUTIONAL
    |
    -> Negatively -> UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    DOMA is very clearly unconstitutional and has been since it was written. Even the strictest interpretation of it would give such a hateful and bigoted power to the states and not the federal government.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    I always thought it obviously violated full-faith and credit, similar to passing a law making it okay for one state not honoring another's driver's licenses. I'm curious though, is their an actual legally admissible argument as to why it might not? (Such as marriage not being covered by full faith and credit?)

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    I always thought it obviously violated full-faith and credit, similar to passing a law making it okay for one state not honoring another's driver's licenses. I'm curious though, is their an actual legally admissible argument as to why it might not? (Such as marriage not being covered by full faith and credit?)

    Pretty sure marriage is covered by full faith. Otherwise, you'd have to get remarried when you moved to a new state.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    LadyM wrote: »
    I don't think Ernie and Bert even seem like a couple (except The Odd Couple). They don't have very many common interests and are rarely affectionate. When I was a kid I assumed they were brothers, actually.

    But do I think having a gay couple is outside the scope of Sesame Street? Not at all. Inclusion is one of Sesame Street's major themes.



    It started out as a politically conscious show from the very beginning. And I think part of the reason homophobia persists is because people can't separate the image of "two men / two women in love" from the image of "two men / two women having sex." So you show a six year old boy giving a six year old girl a flower and "awww, cute", but a six year old boy giving another six year old boy a flower can't POSSIBLY be a depiction of an innocent crush, it must be an attempt to Corrupt The Children or something. Bleh.
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    wandering on
    jBEKRTH.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    I always thought it obviously violated full-faith and credit, similar to passing a law making it okay for one state not honoring another's driver's licenses. I'm curious though, is their an actual legally admissible argument as to why it might not? (Such as marriage not being covered by full faith and credit?)

    Pretty sure marriage is covered by full faith. Otherwise, you'd have to get remarried when you moved to a new state.

    It is

    DOMA's purpose us to make a specific exception to that rule for gay marriage

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    "Corrupt the Children" also is code for "Educate them in a way that prevents me from making them hate teh gays as much as I do." A lot of the arguments made by opponents of Gay Marriage point to the idea that bigots know kids won't turn gay (well, at least the majority of them) but are afraid of children learning it's okay to be openly gay. Which if that happens, well then they're going to not be able to be openly anti-gay like they are right now and that just kills them inside.

    So remember everyone: Each time we make a small victory, these folks are at home crying in their beer. :)

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
    V1m
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    This seems topical to the point of discussion:



    And I think it's a good point to keep in mind. We're making slow steps towards more acceptance and tolerance, and despite all the kicking and screaming to the contrary, I don't see the prejudice in a lot of these areas being able to remain in a world connected as we are.

    Caedwyr on
    steam_sig.png
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    T is for Turducken, obvs.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    The second t is silent.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    MrMister on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    I'm fairly certain they were supposed to be performing sisters.

    I could be wrong. Either way Coraline was AWESOME. I'm also a Gaiman sucker though.

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Unsilent Protagonist Egg Corridor?Registered User regular
    There seriously need to be more LGBT characters in youth-aimed media these days. And no, Dumbledore does not count.

    But yeah, DOMA will not be able to stand very long now that DADT has fallen.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    Bert and Ernie may not be gay but I think we can all agree one of the members of G-club probably is:

    jBEKRTH.png
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    Spinster sisters.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    I always thought it obviously violated full-faith and credit, similar to passing a law making it okay for one state not honoring another's driver's licenses. I'm curious though, is their an actual legally admissible argument as to why it might not? (Such as marriage not being covered by full faith and credit?)

    Pretty sure marriage is covered by full faith. Otherwise, you'd have to get remarried when you moved to a new state.

    It is

    DOMA's purpose us to make a specific exception to that rule for gay marriage

    Sure, but since FFC is in the Constitution, Congress can't make exceptions to it without a constitutional amendment.

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Kagera wrote: »
    The second t is silent.

    The second t's voice has been systematically silenced by the patriarchy.

    redx on
    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Stop being so grammarnormative.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    This is a good point and I wonder how long it'll be before we start seeing gay characters/romance in children's entertainment.

    The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.

    Weren't the two old women in Coraline lesbians? Or were they supposed to be spinster sisters, or something?

    One thing I found incredibly obnoxious in Wall-E was that they took pains to very clearly gender Wall-E and EVA as a boy and girl, even though they were in fact robots and no such thing; the only reason to do this was to fit it in with heteronormative audience expectations.

    YES YES YES

    Christ that pissed me off.


  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    There seriously need to be more LGBT characters in youth-aimed media these days. And no, Dumbledore does not count.

    But yeah, DOMA will not be able to stand very long now that DADT has fallen.

    Yes and no. Part of me says Dumbledore is PERFECT because his sexuality just doesn't matter. That's like the holy grail of orientation acceptance.

    And then part of me is "no they just hid that shit as hard as they could." :(

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    If JK wanted to hide it she could have done without it. Him being attracted to Grindelwald is a big part of the last book, and there's a part in Rita Skeeter's book/interviews where she accuses him of having an inappropriate relationship with Harry.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    If JK wanted to hide it she could have done without it. Him being attracted to Grindelwald is a big part of the last book, and there's a part in Rita Skeeter's book/interviews where she accuses him of having an inappropriate relationship with Harry.

    But neither of those things ever implied sexuality or romantic attraction - his association with Grindlewald was painted similarly to Death Eaters' with Voldemort - a charismatic leader with what sounds like a good idea at first glance ("the greater good" and all that) convinces good people to follow him down a dark path. And the relationship with Harry was criticized for the level of personal involvement and favoritism involved (which is true, and out of context would look very unbecoming of a school teacher).

    Neither one of those plot lines would have any romantic tones to them if not for a Q&A response Rowling gave months after the book was published. Which personally I feel is somewhat disingenuous in itself, like the years-after-the-fact suggestion by Next Generation writers that Picard was Wesley's real father and not Crusher's husband. It might put a new perspective on things, but that doesn't make it follow from the original plot.

    The only adult character that was ever given any sexuality in Rowling's books was Dumbledore's brother, and that was an accident of poor wording (when asked about the goat line, her answer was along the lines of "Holy shit I wrote that? I didn't mean that!").

    Hevach on
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    If JK wanted to hide it she could have done without it. Him being attracted to Grindelwald is a big part of the last book, and there's a part in Rita Skeeter's book/interviews where she accuses him of having an inappropriate relationship with Harry.

    She did hide it, his attraction is never mentioned or hinted in any way; you easily can take away that they were just good friends.

    Skeeter's crap was just Skeeter being slimey.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    You can't say that it was never hinted at when "Skeeter being slimy" literally hints at Dumbledore was too interested in Harry for bad reasons.

    And even though there's no discussion of Dumbledore/Grindelwald make out sessions, the attraction is ambiguous at worst. Go through that book and imagine Grindelwald was a woman. The idea that Dumbledore was attracted to this highly intelligent, ambitious, charismatic person suddenly isn't unbelievable at all. Couple that with the fact that Dumbledore never had a wife or girlfriend (she made them take out of the movies a line from Dumbledore about a girl he had a crush on), I'd say the character does a pretty good job of making homosexuality one trait out of many and not drawing any more attention to it than was required for the plot.

    Essentially, saying Dumbledore can't be gay because he wasnt explicitly gay just assumes heterosexuality for every character. By making Dumbledore explicitly gay, Rowling would have accepted that assumption. While a lot of people probably do assume that, you can't start to diffuse the assumption unless you work without it.

    For another example, look at Neil Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.

    KalTorak on
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    You can't say that it was never hinted at when "Skeeter being slimy" literally hints at Dumbledore was too interested in Harry for bad reasons.

    And even though there's no discussion of Dumbledore/Grindelwald make out sessions, the attraction is ambiguous at worst. Go through that book and imagine Grindelwald was a woman. The idea that Dumbledore was attracted to this highly intelligent, ambitious, charismatic person suddenly isn't unbelievable at all. Couple that with the fact that Dumbledore never had a wife or girlfriend (she made them take out of the movies a line from Dumbledore about a girl he had a crush on), I'd say the character does a pretty good job of making homosexuality one trait out of many and not drawing any more attention to it than was required for the plot.

    Essentially, saying Dumbledore can't be gay because he wasnt explicitly gay just assumes heterosexuality for every character. By making Dumbledore explicitly gay, Rowling would have accepted that assumption. While a lot of people probably do assume that, you can't start to diffuse the assumption unless you work without it.

    For another example, look at Neil Gaiman's "Anansi Boys." The main cast is predominantly black, but he leaves that out when describing them. The assumption is that characters in Britain and the US are white unless we're told otherwise. Gaiman turns the assumption around, and only describes the non-black characters' race (as "white"). People don't notice the assumption until it's broken. It's harder to do with a non-obvious trait like homosexuality, but the practice of dispensing with the assumption by refusing to explicitly describe how a character isn't the norm works the same way.

    Skeeter is just dropping headlines to get attention. That is in no way a hint that Dumbledore was gay.

    And no one is saying he can't be gay. He very much is because JK said so. I'm just saying that, when I read the book, I never ever got even the vaguest hint of it. I never got any hint of sexuality for the character at all which is just fine.

«134567100
Sign In or Register to comment.