DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthcoming

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthcoming

Postby iamspen » Thu May 31, 2012 4:27 pm UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/massachusetts-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This is fantastic news for those of us who care about trivial matters such as human rights. While the war isn't close to being won, this is still a monumental victory that will hopefully not be overturned by a SCOTUS which doesn't seem to care much about things like constitutionality. Now if we could only legalize regular, normal, everyday marriage that happens to be homosexual in nature in every state...

On a related note, I don't know if I'm excited or horrified to see the shitstorm Fox News will brew because of this.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5926
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Angua » Thu May 31, 2012 4:41 pm UTC

Just at the beginning of the hurricane season too....

Great news, though!
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
ShortChelsea
One thousand four hundred and thirty seven
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby ShortChelsea » Thu May 31, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

The comments below the article are certainly enlightening. <---Sarcasm.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby iamspen » Thu May 31, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

I try to avoid those, with marginal success.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

This explains why my skin started rotting earlier! I was hanging out with a gay friend earlier in the week and forgot to shower. Must've left some gay on me that felt empowered by this ruling and decided to go all Gay Agenda on my flesh.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

Hate seeing these things as legal fights.

Good stuff I guess? Part of me wishes it was a democratic process accepting it though. I know the majority of people are wrong in opposing it...but part of me is still irked by simply over-ruling that majority when your country isn't there yet.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby iamspen » Thu May 31, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

But that's a quintessential part of our democratic system. Part of the job of our judicial system is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. I like democracy as much as the next guy, but those same democratic ideals are jeopordized when populism takes hold.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 6:57 pm UTC

Kind of, I just prefer seeing it preserve existing freedoms more than creating new ones.

And I especially just disagree with people re-reading things and saying "Turns out this was intended all along!" when it wasn't. If we want to change laws, we should have to change them, not hit a point where it becomes popular to say it was already the rule and we've been reading it wrong.

I also generally hate the idea where a minority opinion or population hit 50.1% and then starts to bludgeon everything around it. We understand you're right...But it took the majority like 500 years to realize it...give the remaining 49.9% more than a couple months to adapt to this thing before switching to the mode where they can't mention it publicly without having swat teams called to their house.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 7:05 pm UTC

It's always nice to see these results happen, though I'm not confident enough at all in the current supreme court to want to see them touch this at all. Still, one step at a time.

I noticed in the ruling that they didn't overturn the part saying that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Does anyone know how many marriage rights are provided at the state level instead of the federal level?

Princess Marzipan wrote:This explains why my skin started rotting earlier! I was hanging out with a gay friend earlier in the week and forgot to shower. Must've left some gay on me that felt empowered by this ruling and decided to go all Gay Agenda on my flesh.

Did you start force-divorcing straight couples yet? That's the next stage after the rotting.

Iceman wrote:Kind of, I just prefer seeing it preserve existing freedoms more than creating new ones.

You mean like acknowledging rights that were granted over 100 years ago, but nobody was willing to apply to a certain group of people because those people were too second-class for them? The equal protection clause isn't being used to "create" new freedoms when people apply it to cases like this. It's being used to point out that the associated rights existed from the very beginning, just people failed to preserve them properly at the time. Now they're rectifying that.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Dream » Thu May 31, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:Kind of, I just prefer seeing it preserve existing freedoms more than creating new ones.

The freedom to form a contract between two similarly gendered people is NOT a new freedom created by this.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 7:15 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
Iceman wrote:Kind of, I just prefer seeing it preserve existing freedoms more than creating new ones.

The freedom to form a contract between two similarly gendered people is NOT a new freedom created by this.


That's the type of hula-hoopery I mean, yes. Marriage is not a contract between only 2 people, there are dozens of 3rd parties.

This freedom did not exist, You're discovering it...you're maybe discovering 'It should have been allowed all along!'

Great, but it wasn't...so change the laws, don't shove it through a crack in the wall.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Роберт » Thu May 31, 2012 7:15 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:I also generally hate the idea where a minority opinion or population hit 50.1% and then starts to bludgeon everything around it. We understand you're right...But it took the majority like 500 years to realize it...give the remaining 49.9% more than a couple months to adapt to this thing before switching to the mode where they can't mention it publicly without having swat teams called to their house.

Ummm... what?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Belial » Thu May 31, 2012 7:17 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:but part of me is still irked by simply over-ruling that majority when your country isn't there yet.


The patience to wait because the country "isn't there yet" is always on hand when it's someone else's freedom at stake.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1889
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby natraj » Thu May 31, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

legalizing gay marriage means straight homophobes are going to all be arrested by swat teams and thrown in jail, clearly. it's the next step after the hurricanes, and right before all their marriages are forcibly dissolved.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

You mean like acknowledging rights that were granted over 100 years ago, but nobody was willing to apply to a certain group of people because those people were too second-class for them? The equal protection clause isn't being used to "create" new freedoms when people apply it to cases like this. It's being used to point out that the associated rights existed from the very beginning, just people failed to preserve them properly at the time. Now they're rectifying that.


Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

If those rights truly ever existed, and went away under that law, then someone failed to 'Preserve' it. If they Never actually were allowed until now, you should create a new rule for it.
Change whatever you need to change, but I really hate just pretending it was the original intention to begin with.

Iceman wrote:
I also generally hate the idea where a minority opinion or population hit 50.1% and then starts to bludgeon everything around it. We understand you're right...But it took the majority like 500 years to realize it...give the remaining 49.9% more than a couple months to adapt to this thing before switching to the mode where they can't mention it publicly without having swat teams called to their house.

Ummm... what?


Was a reference to the tactic of attacking people who still disagree fairly shortly after it becomes mainstream to accept it. Most specifically the little trend of 'SWATing' people...calling in fake 911 calls against some conservatives to get them arrested or their house swarmed by police. The example is extreme and a little bit of a recent kind of funny occurrance that was reported on again today, but the reality is many people will change their mind on some social issue at like 35, and by 36 they're denouncing and attacking people who held the same view they did like a year ago.

The patience to wait because the country "isn't there yet" is always on hand when it's someone else's freedom at stake.


It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right. It gets used in the other direction as well to protect our morals or whatever it is. They're always intended as well intentioned, but it does force the other side into something they aren't ok with.

There's tons of things we can't even imagine that we are all currently doing that will seem morally reprehensible to people in 200 years. If they travelled back in time and forced those rules on us, they may be right and they may be wrong, but people can't just adjust like that in either direction.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu May 31, 2012 7:31 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:Great, but it wasn't...so change the laws, don't shove it through a crack in the wall.

You have a lot of opinions. Once in a while, it's useful for us to know why you have them.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:Change whatever you need to change, but I really hate just pretending it was the original intention to begin with.

Funny thing about laws: intentions don't change them. You can intend for a law to mean anything. It's the wording that matters. If the wording doesn't match the intention, then it isn't the duty of future generations to blindly ignore that and pretend that the original group got the wording to mean what they wanted it to originally. Nothing is being changed right now; people are just interpreting the laws, as written, properly. If you don't want that to happen, then you should ask law-makers to use less broad terms, not ask us to ignore the wording of the law.

Are you opposed to courts finding laws unconstitutional at all then? That's basically what every case of "this law is unconstitutional" amounts to. Should we have had to pass a law legalizing burning flags, instead of finding that it was unconstitutional to do such, due to the 1st amendment? Your entire view would be to remove judicial review.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby iamspen » Thu May 31, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:If those rights truly ever existed, and went away under that law, then someone failed to 'Preserve' it. If they Never actually were allowed until now, you should create a new rule for it.
Change whatever you need to change, but I really hate just pretending it was the original intention to begin with.


What if what the law says and the way it was enforced are two completely different things? What about slavery and Jim Crowe, where the rights and freedoms of blacks were clearly protected Constitutionally, except nobody gave a shit? What if the Constitution clearly indicates that existing laws are wrong?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Belial » Thu May 31, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right.


I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that letting gays marry each other won't cause religious bigots to die of anaphylactic shock.

The entire reason we don't have a demarchy is because if we were allowed to vote each others' rights away we would tear each other apart like rats in a sack inside two weeks. It's not oppression for me to say "no, actually, you can't oppress people that way, no matter how awesome you all think it is."
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu May 31, 2012 7:42 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right.

Oh, really? It relies on the assumption that I'm right? You mean that it's exactly like every other decision that anyone has ever made?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Iceman wrote:Change whatever you need to change, but I really hate just pretending it was the original intention to begin with.

Funny thing about laws: intentions don't change them. You can intend for a law to mean anything. It's the wording that matters. If the wording doesn't match the intention, then it isn't the duty of future generations to blindly ignore that and pretend that the original group got the wording to mean what they wanted it to originally. Nothing is being changed right now; people are just interpreting the laws, as written, properly. If you don't want that to happen, then you should ask law-makers to use less broad terms, not ask us to ignore the wording of the law.

Are you opposed to courts finding laws unconstitutional at all then? That's basically what every case of "this law is unconstitutional" amounts to. Should we have had to pass a law legalizing burning flags, instead of finding that it was unconstitutional to do such, due to the 1st amendment? Your entire view would be to remove judicial review.


Actually, one of the fundamental principles of law is that the intention is exactly what matters, not just the words.

What if what the law says and the way it was enforced are two completely different things? What about slavery and Jim Crowe, where the rights and freedoms of blacks were clearly protected Constitutionally, except nobody gave a shit? What if the Constitution clearly indicates that existing laws are wrong?


Similar thing, what did they mean to do? If they wrote it and it could be read as saying 'slaves are like totally free' and then the guys wroting it went back to their slave filled plantations and had some Brandy, then apparently that's not what they meant.

In the case of something like flag burning we have what amounts to new discovery. When it was written, people were neither burning flags a lot, nor being arrested for it, so people enjoyed the free speach afforded them.
When someone chose later to express it in this manner, it had to be pointed out that yes, he did have the right to do this, and this is actually what he was intended to have the right to do. (Quite specifically in this case since criticizing the government was an important part of it)

So in that case, the person had the freedom, it was enforced improperly away from him, and they had to determine that that would actually infringe upon an existing right.
So he would have been allowed to do it at a previous time, it was unpopular to do at this time.

Gay marriage or slavery were not that way, these things existed already and laws were written with full knowledge these people existed and they had no intention of including them.

And yes, it is oppression to forcibly impose your morality on others, even if its to stop them from imposing their on others as well. It may not be wrong to do, but yes, it's oppressive to do it by force and laws.

Iceman wrote:
It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right.
Oh, really? It relies on the assumption that I'm right? You mean that it's exactly like every other decision that anyone has ever made?


Nope, that's what democracy is for...add your opinion to the pile and we'll count them. Does not rely on an individual being correct, merely comes to a plurality on what we want to do.

User avatar
darkone238
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:37 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby darkone238 » Thu May 31, 2012 8:02 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Iceman wrote:It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right.


I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that letting gays marry each other won't cause religious bigots to die of anaphylactic shock.

The entire reason we don't have a demarchy is because if we were allowed to vote each others' rights away we would tear each other apart like rats in a sack inside two weeks. It's not oppression for me to say "no, actually, you can't oppress people that way, no matter how awesome you all think it is."

This. Opinions and democracy are nice for some things (Should we build a bridge or invest in other roads?) but when it comes to human rights it's asinine to allow people's opinions to influence them.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 8:04 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:Actually, one of the fundamental principles of law is that the intention is exactly what matters, not just the words.

The principle of law is that the letter of the law is what determines legality. Especially in the US, the constitution was written with the intention that people would not be bound by the original intentions.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

darkone238 wrote:
Belial wrote:
Iceman wrote:It's still ultimately enforcing your opinion over others, relies on the assumption we're right.


I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that letting gays marry each other won't cause religious bigots to die of anaphylactic shock.

The entire reason we don't have a demarchy is because if we were allowed to vote each others' rights away we would tear each other apart like rats in a sack inside two weeks. It's not oppression for me to say "no, actually, you can't oppress people that way, no matter how awesome you all think it is."

This. Opinions and democracy are nice for some things (Should we build a bridge or invest in other roads?) but when it comes to human rights it's asinine to allow people's opinions to influence them.


What about conflicting ones? Burquas for instance? Where do our rights to enforce end? Can I stop someone in Sweden from oppressing someone?

Anyway, I won't derail any further as it wasn't my intention....I meant to say I prefer Democracy to Forcibly making decisions. It's sad when we hold open votes and people still oppose this.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Jave D » Thu May 31, 2012 8:07 pm UTC

America is cursed!

The Bible is very clear on the homosexual lifestyle. It is a abomination before the eyes of GOD to be a homosexual. In the last 3 years homosexuality has been pushed by America’s first Bi-sexual President Obama. Obama has decided to go against the Bible and say he is for gay marriage which makes Obama the new leader of the abominations. A vote for Obama is now a vote against the Bible. America is going to be punished for electing such a evil leader and America is going to be punished for embracing the filthy nasty unnatural lifestyle of homosexuals. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah America will be punished by the All Mighty GOD. We are a cursed country.


...wait, Obama's bi? How does this blogger know this? Did God tell him in a prophetic wet dream?

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby eran_rathan » Thu May 31, 2012 8:10 pm UTC

Iceman, you clearly have a democracy and a republic confused.

You are thinking of a direct democracy, not a constitutional republic. Because the US has this thing called the Constitution, which includes the 1st, 10th, and 14th Amendments, everyone is to be afforded equal protection of the law.

The expansion of rights to a class of people in no way diminishes the rights of the people who previously were oppressing them, it just means that the bigots aren't allowed oppress them.

How is the expansion of basic civil rights to more people a bad thing?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Роберт » Thu May 31, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:America is cursed!

The Bible is very clear on the homosexual lifestyle. It is a abomination before the eyes of GOD to be a homosexual. In the last 3 years homosexuality has been pushed by America’s first Bi-sexual President Obama. Obama has decided to go against the Bible and say he is for gay marriage which makes Obama the new leader of the abominations. A vote for Obama is now a vote against the Bible. America is going to be punished for electing such a evil leader and America is going to be punished for embracing the filthy nasty unnatural lifestyle of homosexuals. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah America will be punished by the All Mighty GOD. We are a cursed country.


...wait, Obama's bi? How does this blogger know this? Did God tell him in a prophetic wet dream?

Wait, this means Taft wasn't bi? How disappointing.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Iceman, you clearly have a democracy and a republic confused.

You are thinking of a direct democracy, not a constitutional republic. Because the US has this thing called the Constitution, which includes the 1st, 10th, and 14th Amendments, everyone is to be afforded equal protection of the law.

The expansion of rights to a class of people in no way diminishes the rights of the people who previously were oppressing them, it just means that the bigots aren't allowed oppress them.

How is the expansion of basic civil rights to more people a bad thing?


I'm not really thinking of it from a 'This is the American system' view at all. More of a broader 'It's too bad this has to be forced on people while the majority disagree' point of view.

I don't buy into the 'bigot' rhetoric, I think it demeans their concerns instead of actually trying to bring them on board. Clearly people can change their minds, I don't understand why were hit a certain point and stop trying to persuade and enter attack mode instead where we attempt to humiliate or silence dissent.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu May 31, 2012 8:31 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:Nope, that's what democracy is for...add your opinion to the pile and we'll count them. Does not rely on an individual being correct, merely comes to a plurality on what we want to do.

...if that's where you're counting, then the judicial way doesn't depend on which policy is correct, either. It just matters which policy is constitutional.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:I'm not really thinking of it from a 'This is the American system' view at all. More of a broader 'It's too bad this has to be forced on people while the majority disagree' point of view.

It's not just American, it's (more or less) every country descended from the British Empire. Our entire legal system is built around common law. Common law is built around the very thing that you're disagreeing with. Literally:
Common law [...] is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.

Law through the judiciary is something that we have been doing since before the US was even a country. Our legal system is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing in this case: protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of a (very rapidly disappearing) majority that wants to oppress them, by finding that that oppression violates already enacted laws.

Iceman wrote:I don't buy into the 'bigot' rhetoric, I think it demeans their concerns instead of actually trying to bring them on board. Clearly people can change their minds, I don't understand why were hit a certain point and stop trying to persuade and enter attack mode instead where we attempt to humiliate or silence dissent.

Their concerns are that they're no longer able to oppress people that they're prejudiced against. I don't see how it could not be bigotry? It's not about "silencing dissent", it's about pointing out that their concerns, as stated, are not valid concerns for the governing of a nation. If they have concerns other than "But I really wanna oppress people!" then they can state those, and they could very well be valid.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:I don't buy into the 'bigot' rhetoric, I think it demeans their concerns instead of actually trying to bring them on board.
What else is there to do with the opinions of people who honestly and sincerely believe that a supernatural entity is going to exact revenge on all of America if we allow the gays to get married?

What is so special about the opinions of religious bigots that rail against homosexuals that we need to let them get their way oppressing homosexuals?

Find me one person who is not a religious ideologue and actually thinks gay marriage is a terrible idea. DO IT.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Iceman » Thu May 31, 2012 9:06 pm UTC

You are correct, I'm not a big fan of the common law form to make social changes.

Ghostbear wrote:
Iceman wrote:I don't buy into the 'bigot' rhetoric, I think it demeans their concerns instead of actually trying to bring them on board. Clearly people can change their minds, I don't understand why were hit a certain point and stop trying to persuade and enter attack mode instead where we attempt to humiliate or silence dissent.

Their concerns are that they're no longer able to oppress people that they're prejudiced against. I don't see how it could not be bigotry? It's not about "silencing dissent", it's about pointing out that their concerns, as stated, are not valid concerns for the governing of a nation. If they have concerns other than "But I really wanna oppress people!" then they can state those, and they could very well be valid.


If you ask them their objection, do they say "I'm upset I can't oppress people I hate?" I haven't heard that one myself.

I don't think I agree with their objections, but the majority seem to centre around them believing this is morally wrong, against their religion, or belittles a sacrament in their faith.
Yet others argue they're fine with it, but fear that once passed, legal action will be taken to compell it to be recognized by their religion as well which they oppose.

I rarely hear the oppression one, I'll listen for it.


What else is there to do with the opinions of people who honestly and sincerely believe that a supernatural entity is going to exact revenge on all of America if we allow the gays to get married?

What is so special about the opinions of religious bigots that rail against homosexuals that we need to let them get their way oppressing homosexuals?

Find me one person who is not a religious ideologue and actually thinks gay marriage is a terrible idea. DO IT.


I mean, take this for example...this is an extremely bigotted and prejudiced statement. But it's ok right now, it's a popular one...you can attack religion (sorry, white people religions, except Judaism)
I happen to agree that its dumb to believe in blah blah blah, but I don't see how this is a good thing to be encouraging? It sounds so....angry and stupid.

Oddly though, anyone I know who both isn't religious and opposes gay marriage...lol, THEY are saying it just because they don't like gays :)

User avatar
darkone238
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:37 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby darkone238 » Thu May 31, 2012 10:18 pm UTC

Iceman wrote:I don't think I agree with their objections, but the majority seem to centre around them believing this is morally wrong, against their religion, or belittles a sacrament in their faith [which is why I feel it ok to oppress the people (gays) who want to engage in such behaviour.]
Yet others argue they're fine with it, but fear that once passed, legal action will be taken to compell it to be recognized by their religion as well which they oppose.

I rarely hear the oppression one, I'll listen for it.



Emphasis and latter half of their argument added. That gay marriage is, to some religious people, morally wrong or belittles a sacrament of their faith is their way of justifying their desire to oppress. That's the whole point (of course we won't go into the part where churches are not forced to perform gay marriages against their will in any form of gay marriage law I've ever seen).

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Djehutynakht » Thu May 31, 2012 11:51 pm UTC

I find it kind of interesting to watch the rest of the country fret over this issue. I'm one of those Massachusettians (legally known as Bay-Staters), so pretty much gay marriage has been legal here ever since before I really decided to start paying attention to actual things (ah to be young and not give a damn...). Honestly, it's not something very huge. I mean, yes, people can get married. But it's not like you see gay couples prancing down the street in wedding attire. It's just one more instance of people doing stuff on their own accord that I really couldn't care less about. Honestly, one doesn't even notice. If you secretly legalized gay marriage in Texas, right now, nobody would ever even really notice a change.

Meh. Churches, Synagogues, etc. etc. can refuse gay marriage all they want. I'm fine with that. But the government, legal-wise, really has no good reason for forbidding it.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Belial » Thu May 31, 2012 11:57 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:But it's not like you see gay couples prancing down the street in wedding attire.
I do. I'm just not under the impression that's bad.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Djehutynakht » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:06 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:But it's not like you see gay couples prancing down the street in wedding attire.
I do. I'm just not under the impression that's bad.


I meant it in the way that it's not obnoxiously trying to get in your face. Sure, one may see gay wedding parties, civil ceremonies or such on occasion, but they're not any more annoying than the straight ones.

I mean, I rarely see weddings of any kind in general really, so maybe I'm not the best judge.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:16 am UTC

Iceman wrote:I don't think I agree with their objections, but the majority seem to centre around them believing this is morally wrong, against their religion, or belittles a sacrament in their faith.
Morally wrong? That is a shaky argument. The only support for that claim is in religious texts, or being spewed by people who adhere to religious texts. There. Is. No. Good. Argument. For declaring homosexuality to be morally wrong. Whatever kind of sex or romance or friendships consenting adults get involved in with other consenting adults is not something anyone can make justified moral claims about.

Against their religion?
No one is being forced to be gay. Hateful religious bigots are free to keep NOT being homosexual. No one's going to force them. And thanks to the whole separation of church and state thing, you're not allowed to legislate your religious beliefs into laws that nonbelievers are compelled to follow. This country does not work that way.

Belittles a sacrament in their faith? I don't see any proposed legislation saying things "Hahaha, seriously, that crap in Leviticus, what IS that? It's totally stupid! Let's laugh at the stupid Christians!"


Yet others argue they're fine with it, but fear that once passed, legal action will be taken to compell it to be recognized by their religion as well which they oppose.
Okay. And I'll gladly help them fight against any such proposed legislation, because that's exactly as bullshit as compelling citizens to recognize Christian morality.


Iceman wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:What else is there to do with the opinions of people who honestly and sincerely believe that a supernatural entity is going to exact revenge on all of America if we allow the gays to get married?

What is so special about the opinions of religious bigots that rail against homosexuals that we need to let them get their way oppressing homosexuals?

Find me one person who is not a religious ideologue and actually thinks gay marriage is a terrible idea. DO IT.


I mean, take this for example...this is an extremely bigotted and prejudiced statement. But it's ok right now, it's a popular one...you can attack religion (sorry, white people religions, except Judaism)
I happen to agree that its dumb to believe in blah blah blah, but I don't see how this is a good thing to be encouraging? It sounds so....angry and stupid.


That's not an attack on religion. It's an attack on hateful bigots who use their religion as a justification. Did I say in that quote "Find me one religious person who doesn't rail against homosexuals?" No, I didn't: I'm well aware such religious people exist. What I challenged you to do was to find someone against gay marriage who is NOT religious. There really are a tiny tiny handful, honestly, but if we somehow removed the religious opposition to gay marriage from the picture, we'd hardly notice any opposition at all.

Oddly though, anyone I know who both isn't religious and opposes gay marriage...lol, THEY are saying it just because they don't like gays :)
The religious people are ALSO just saying it because they don't like the gays. They're just very good at deluding themselves into thinking there's any hint of morality involved in the calculation.

Djehutynakht wrote:I meant it in the way that it's not obnoxiously trying to get in your face
You realize hetero folk are more "obnoxiously trying to get in your face" than homo folk? Mother's Day. Father's Day. Valentine's Day. New Year's Eve kisses at midnight. Christmas kisses under mistletoe. Hetero weddings. Children. Couples going on out dates.
Hetero sex is ALL up in your face, but match up the crotchal equipment and suddenly we've got a miscarriage of justice on our hands?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Shivahn » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:23 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:You realize hetero folk are more "obnoxiously trying to get in your face" than homo folk? Mother's Day. Father's Day. Valentine's Day. New Year's Eve kisses at midnight. Christmas kisses under mistletoe. Hetero weddings. Children. Couples going on out dates.

Gay people can be fathers too!

Mostly I just want to post this.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:29 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The religious people are ALSO just saying it because they don't like the gays. They're just very good at deluding themselves into thinking there's any hint of morality involved in the calculation.

Isn't it enough to say that opponents of marriage equality are wrong without also trying to become their psychiatrist?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: DOMA struck down; hurricanes, earthquakes, fires forthco

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:37 am UTC

Shivan wrote:Gay people can be fathers too!
Oops; didn't mean to imply otherwise. Just point out that Father's and Mother's Days have mostly been celebrations of the results of heterosexual sex which cannot reasonably be avoided in this country.

Case in point about straight sex being 'in your face', I just went into the kitchen for like five minutes to eat a hamburger; the TV happened to be tuned to a sitcom called "rules of engagement" which appears to be about the lives of ... three straight couples.

But no, it's totally those damn queers getting their weird sex all up in our faces.

Edit to Add:

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:The religious people are ALSO just saying it because they don't like the gays. They're just very good at deluding themselves into thinking there's any hint of morality involved in the calculation.

Isn't it enough to say that opponents of marriage equality are wrong without also trying to become their psychiatrist?
I notice I specifically claimed SELF-delusion; I'll withdraw that. But there is no "morality" involved in gay marriage. If someone believes there is, they are deluded. Religious objections tend to have a morality component. Therefore religious objectors to gay marriage are deluded.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests