The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
LGBTT: It's Raining DOMA Rulings! (It's for Thread)
Fencingsax
It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
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?
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
0
Posts
"Terrific?"
LGBT-tastic
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.
Tatersalad, because god knows you can't have a party without it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well we know it'll be a 5-4 decision hinging on Roberts not being retarded.
pleasepaypreacher.net
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.
Are there large popular ones that have sites? I want to peek into the lions den.
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The quick John Roberts decision tree:
How will this law affect corporations? -> Positively -> CONSTITUTIONAL
|
-> Negatively -> UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Pretty sure marriage is covered by full faith. Otherwise, you'd have to get remarried when you moved to a new state.
Steam: pazython
The majority of Disney and Pixar movies contain straight romance, after all.
It is
DOMA's purpose us to make a specific exception to that rule for gay marriage
"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.
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.
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.
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.
But yeah, DOMA will not be able to stand very long now that DADT has fallen.
Spinster sisters.
Sure, but since FFC is in the Constitution, Congress can't make exceptions to it without a constitutional amendment.
The second t's voice has been systematically silenced by the patriarchy.
YES YES YES
Christ that pissed me off.
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."
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!").
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.
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.