As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

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

18687899192100

Posts

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That was Scalia making fun of them, because he's the only real legislator in this country.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    Yeah, there's no cameras in the Supreme Court or you would have seen Scalia making a dismissive wanking motion.

    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

  • Options
    ArcherArcher Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    That was Scalia making fun of them, because he's the only real legislator in this country.

    I thought that was Roberts because he wanted a reason why he should just wait.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    If Roberts wants to get out of the merits then he can just rule the pro-Prop 8 people don't have standing (which is itself sort of a ruling on the merits, since it says they've suffered no injury).

  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    I'm not sure whether claiming that they don't have standing actually has merit. Propositions are put into law directly by voters, so wouldn't eliminating the law constitute a harm to the majority of voters who voted for it? Otherwise, no one would ever have standing if a democratically elected leader decided to just ignore the results of an election and remain in power, since by Prop 8 precedent there would be no demonstrable injury.

  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Whoever actually won the election would have standing. In the case of a proposition, you'd have to demonstrate that people would be harmed by it not going into effect.

  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Hmm, true. There might be a better example, though, though I'm not ruling out that there might not be.

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Plus striking down an unconstitutional law doesn't harm the majority voters; it helps all citizens.

  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Striking down a constitutional law as unconstitutional harms all citizens for the same reason, and we can't determine which it is before the ruling actually happens.

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    err...the ruling happened in the district court. The question of standing is whether the pro-Prop 8 people have standing to appeal that ruling.

  • Options
    Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    I'll be honest, as a longtime Republican, I've never actually met anyone who holds that kind of belief, even among the born again religious right I know. It's like meat on Fridays; only the fundiest of the fundies actually go there. Most just mutter on about the OT definition of marriage (always a hoot after you've pointed out that 'marriage' has a Latin root, not Hebrew).

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    I'm not sure whether claiming that they don't have standing actually has merit. Propositions are put into law directly by voters, so wouldn't eliminating the law constitute a harm to the majority of voters who voted for it? Otherwise, no one would ever have standing if a democratically elected leader decided to just ignore the results of an election and remain in power, since by Prop 8 precedent there would be no demonstrable injury.

    It was putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. The people in this majority, who voted for Proposition 8 were voting on something that would not effect them in any way, shape, form, or fashion. They were voting to be assholes to a minority population in their state out of pure bigotry.

    If this is not blatantly obvious to you, then I just don't know what to say.

  • Options
    Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    I'll be honest, as a longtime Republican, I've never actually met anyone who holds that kind of belief, even among the born again religious right I know. It's like meat on Fridays; only the fundiest of the fundies actually go there. Most just mutter on about the OT definition of marriage (always a hoot after you've pointed out that 'marriage' has a Latin root, not Hebrew).

    My mother absolutely does but then she's the only person I know who does.

  • Options
    DiorinixDiorinix Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    Regarding being an ally, that is how I identify myself. It never really occurred to me to need to add "Straight" in front of it.

    ... I sometimes also identify myself as "One of the oppressors" (being a tall hetero Caucasian male in his early 30's, I could easily be one based on raw privilege alone, like woah), but that's mainly because it makes one of my best friends (who happens to be a lesbian) laugh.

    She'd also often counter that while I wasn't 'a villager' per se, I did live in 'the village' (until recently I'd happened to live on the edge of Toronto's gayborhood), which I thought was a nice way of putting it.

    I have many of the same feeling regarding being an "ally" as you do. There's a pair of couples that my wife and I often triple-date with:

    - a pair of gay guys, one chinese and one caucasian
    - a lesbian couple, one chinese, one first gen polish immigrant

    My wife is also chinese. I'm the only straight white dude in the group. It Is a very different experince to be the minority when we go out together. Something WAY more people of my demographic should experience - if you aren't already supportive of equal rights (and other gender issues), it will quickly open your eyes and wake you up.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Mmmmm....toasty.
  • Options
    MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Options
    NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Diorinix wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Regarding being an ally, that is how I identify myself. It never really occurred to me to need to add "Straight" in front of it.

    ... I sometimes also identify myself as "One of the oppressors" (being a tall hetero Caucasian male in his early 30's, I could easily be one based on raw privilege alone, like woah), but that's mainly because it makes one of my best friends (who happens to be a lesbian) laugh.

    She'd also often counter that while I wasn't 'a villager' per se, I did live in 'the village' (until recently I'd happened to live on the edge of Toronto's gayborhood), which I thought was a nice way of putting it.

    I have many of the same feeling regarding being an "ally" as you do. There's a pair of couples that my wife and I often triple-date with:

    - a pair of gay guys, one chinese and one caucasian
    - a lesbian couple, one chinese, one first gen polish immigrant

    My wife is also chinese. I'm the only straight white dude in the group. It Is a very different experince to be the minority when we go out together. Something WAY more people of my demographic should experience - if you aren't already supportive of equal rights (and other gender issues), it will quickly open your eyes and wake you up.

    I had a similar experience visiting Hong Kong. First time was with a Battle Group so a decent chunk of people were still American whenever I was strolling about town (wanna say about 20000 or so).

    Second time was just my sub tender, crew of only 3000.

    Basically it felt less like a trip to Chinatown the second time and more like being in a foreign country.

    newSig.jpg
  • Options
    DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »

    It's easy to be pissed at the guy who put you in chains if you forget that most dudes would have put you in the guillotine.

  • Options
    RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Delzhand wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »

    It's easy to be pissed at the guy who put you in chains if you forget that most dudes would have put you in the guillotine.

    Its politically not a bad idea either. I'm sure theres plenty of Democratic legislators still around that have a yay vote on DOMA or voiced public support in the past and this is a way of saying that all can be forgiven if you turn around and support equality now.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • Options
    TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    How is it not Obama?

    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • Options
    Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Yeah, I'm not pissed that the award went to Bill, I'm pissed that the first ever award didn't go to Obama. He'll still likely receive the award at some point, but he should have been the first recipient.

    Sweeney Tom on
  • Options
    AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Yeah, I'm not pissed that the award went to Bill, I'm pissed that the first ever award didn't go to Obama. He'll still likely receive the award at some point, but he should have been the first recipient.

    Or Biden.

  • Options
    Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    The French Senate took its first look at President Hollande's gay marriage bill. The debate is due to conclude in 9 days, and the bill is expected to pass.

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    The French Senate took its first look at President Hollande's gay marriage bill. The debate is due to conclude in 9 days, and the bill is expected to pass.

    That's good. France is sort of weird; they had that big protest against gay marriage in Paris recently, and the anti-gay sentiment over there doesn't seem to be motivated by religion from what I can tell.

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Yeah, it was hundreds of thousands of protesters from the NBC news article I read. Riot police had to get involved.

  • Options
    Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    They are kinda religious in France (it's a majority Catholic country). Arguments are that Hollande is focusing on legalizing gay marriage while unemployment there is at its highest in 13 years, amidst other worries the people have about the country and jobs etc, which is what at least a few big protests have been about, if not that Paris protest as well. And a poll released today said 53% of the country are fine with gay marriage being legalized, but only 41% support gay couples adopting.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    I'll be honest, as a longtime Republican, I've never actually met anyone who holds that kind of belief, even among the born again religious right I know. It's like meat on Fridays; only the fundiest of the fundies actually go there. Most just mutter on about the OT definition of marriage (always a hoot after you've pointed out that 'marriage' has a Latin root, not Hebrew).

    My mother absolutely does but then she's the only person I know who does.

    Some of the anti-gay marriage advocates (the "Family Research Council") have this as their explicit goal. Direct quote:
    It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    I'll be honest, as a longtime Republican, I've never actually met anyone who holds that kind of belief, even among the born again religious right I know. It's like meat on Fridays; only the fundiest of the fundies actually go there. Most just mutter on about the OT definition of marriage (always a hoot after you've pointed out that 'marriage' has a Latin root, not Hebrew).

    My mother absolutely does but then she's the only person I know who does.

    Some of the anti-gay marriage advocates (the "Family Research Council") have this as their explicit goal. Direct quote:
    It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

    That's some scurry shit right there.

  • Options
    Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yeah, it was hundreds of thousands of protesters from the NBC news article I read. Riot police had to get involved.

    I only read tens of thousands.

    In fact, I read different numbers depending on the article as I recall.

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Tens of thousands sounds much more reasonable (and hopeful).

  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Archer wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Yes most of them absolutely tore the prop 8 guy to pieces and then were like "naw, we don't want to be known for this so we'll pass."

    So we won't be getting ruling that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. But at least California will get it back again.

    I can't help but feel pretty let down after they way they laid into him.

    I think it'll come down to the fact that gays entering into straight marriage is possible, even if completely impractical. Text before reality and all that. Contrast with DOMA, on which the solicitor general ran out of ideas for.

    People can marry within their own race and religion as well. Doesn't mean they should only be allowed to do so. I see no difference between barring marriage based on the partners' genders and the anti-miscegenation laws. They are all discriminatory.

    It's pretty simple, sex of any kind is sinful, the only reason sex is okay is because of procreation and you better damn well procreate with who your father says so therefor it better only be in a marriage he approves of. You know, Christians a thousand years ago taking Greek philosophy and twisting it all up wrong, like always.

    I'll be honest, as a longtime Republican, I've never actually met anyone who holds that kind of belief, even among the born again religious right I know. It's like meat on Fridays; only the fundiest of the fundies actually go there. Most just mutter on about the OT definition of marriage (always a hoot after you've pointed out that 'marriage' has a Latin root, not Hebrew).

    My mother absolutely does but then she's the only person I know who does.

    Some of the anti-gay marriage advocates (the "Family Research Council") have this as their explicit goal. Direct quote:
    It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

    They also lobby for restrictions on abortion, divorce and pornogaphy...pretty much a recipe for Armageddon through domestic violence. All we really need to do to solve this is get them laid; hookers are like fundie kryptonite.

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    The attorney general of Arizona is going to sue that little town of Brisbee to stop its Civil Unions.

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I wonder when all the decent people are just going to move out of there.

  • Options
    MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    The attorney general of Arizona is going to sue that little town of Brisbee to stop its Civil Unions.

    I was wondering how long that would take.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Wasn't there mention that some people of Arizona want to secede? Not from the Union, just, y'know, from Arizona.

    Decomposey on
    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
Sign In or Register to comment.