The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

NSMike wrote:

The question of polygamy as part of the slippery slope is amusing to me, as marriage, not gay marriage, opens that question. The legality of gay marriage is no more legally or socially complex than heterosexual marriage. In fact, there are notable societal benefits to permitting it. It doesn't change the arguments against polygamy. Gay marriage is not somewhere further down a slope, it's a correction.

I hadn't actually considered that perspective. Thanks, Mike.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The question of polygamy as part of the slippery slope is amusing to me, as marriage, not gay marriage, opens that question. The legality of gay marriage is no more legally or socially complex than heterosexual marriage. In fact, there are notable societal benefits to permitting it. It doesn't change the arguments against polygamy. Gay marriage is not somewhere further down a slope, it's a correction.

I hadn't actually considered that perspective. Thanks, Mike.

Yeah I thought this was a new and interesting angle as well. I will be incorporating it into my arsenal of marriage equality points.

I'm assuming there were also slippery slope arguments made against giving anyone but land-owning white males the vote, integrating schools, recognizing mixed race marriages and labeling pizza a vegetable but so far society appears to be trucking along like always and I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

Yes, but the jackboots will be FABULOUS!!!

Tanglebones wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

Yes, but the jackboots will be FABULOUS!!!

Of course! Even in fascism, there is no excuse for non-fabulousness.

Well, as long as the llama will play MMOs with me then I guess it'll be okay. I can't even get my current wife to do that.

/gamer agenda

Kehama wrote:

Well, as long as the llama will play MMOs with me then I guess it'll be okay. I can't even get my current wife to do that.

/gamer agenda

We will do our best.

We may be jackbooted thugs, but we still have a heart... somewhere.

Lest we get carried away with good news:
http://www.examiner.com/article/ugan...

Ugandan leader: Passing ‘Kill the Gays bill’ will be ‘Christmas gift’
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

Yes, but the jackboots will be FABULOUS!!!

Of course! Even in fascism, there is no excuse for non-fabulousness.

Fabuliscim would be a great little commie boutique.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

I assume one of the gay bullet points on your gay agenda is "gay time machine" then too, 'cos Kehama ain't getting any younger...

IMAGE(http://toata.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/doctorwhopic.jpg)

Bloo Driver wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

Yes, but the jackboots will be FABULOUS!!!

Of course! Even in fascism, there is no excuse for non-fabulousness.

Fabuliscim would be a great little commie boutique.

I love GWJ so freaking much.

Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

I assume one of the gay bullet points on your gay agenda is "gay time machine" then too, 'cos Kehama ain't getting any younger...

IMAGE(http://toata.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/doctorwhopic.jpg)

Ugh. No. Nonononono. TARDIS blue, thank you very much.

/geek agenda

Rubb Ed wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

Rubb Ed and I are working on making that happen.

/gay agenda

I assume one of the gay bullet points on your gay agenda is "gay time machine" then too, 'cos Kehama ain't getting any younger...

IMAGE(http://toata.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/doctorwhopic.jpg)

Ugh. No. Nonononono. TARDIS blue, thank you very much.

/geek agenda

That's not pink anyway. That is clearly fuchsia.

/really gay

I don't know... *tilts head* is it more fuchsia or more raspberry?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

That's not pink anyway. That is clearly fuchsia.

/really gay

I'd like to add an action item to the gay agenda. Can you guys just up and publish a list of all the colors, ranked by relative gayness? Just to clear up these kinds of confusion in the future, for those of us who don't have an instinctive gaydar for Pantone colors. :p

Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That's not pink anyway. That is clearly fuchsia.

/really gay

I'd like to add an action item to the gay agenda. Can you guys just up and publish a list of all the colors, ranked by relative gayness? Just to clear up these kinds of confusion in the future, for those of us who don't have an instinctive gaydar for Pantone colors. :p

Just avoid everything outside a 16 count Crayola box.

It's what I do. Works great.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That's not pink anyway. That is clearly fuchsia.

/really gay

I'd like to add an action item to the gay agenda. Can you guys just up and publish a list of all the colors, ranked by relative gayness? Just to clear up these kinds of confusion in the future, for those of us who don't have an instinctive gaydar for Pantone colors. :p

Just avoid everything outside a 16 count Crayola box.

It's what I do. Works great.

16? Well Ooh La La there Mary. You get 4 colors at the IHOP, like the good lord intended!

KingGorilla wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That's not pink anyway. That is clearly fuchsia.

/really gay

I'd like to add an action item to the gay agenda. Can you guys just up and publish a list of all the colors, ranked by relative gayness? Just to clear up these kinds of confusion in the future, for those of us who don't have an instinctive gaydar for Pantone colors. :p

Just avoid everything outside a 16 count Crayola box.

It's what I do. Works great.

16? Well Ooh La La there Mary. You get 4 colors at the IHOP, like the good lord intended!

Ugh, those crayons are crap. So glad my parents let me bring my own.

Raspberry has more red undertones. It could very well be raspberry in the paintcan, but with the outdoor lighting in that particular photo, it has the distinctly blue undertones of fuchsia.

Yeah, I have to agree, that's not pink, it's fuschia. And it's still wrong for the TARDIS.

Kehama wrote:

I'm assuming there were also slippery slope arguments made against giving anyone but land-owning white males the vote, integrating schools, recognizing mixed race marriages and labeling pizza a vegetable but so far society appears to be trucking along like always and I wasn't forced to marry an interracial llama by jackbooted government thugs upon my 18th birthday.

So you're saying you're under 18? I'd like to introduce you to my friend *Legion*.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

So you're saying you're under 18? I'd like to introduce you to my friend *Legion*.

I was 18 17 years ago. If *Legion* has a Tardis I may have been in trouble. Wait... could be have been in trouble... ow.. brain... hurting from... temporal tense conflict!

FYI...

The SCOTUS has moved the conference to discuss granting cert to the Prop. 8 case to Nov. 30.

My guess is they are doing a lot of soul searching after the election results.

Do they punt and left California return to providing gay marriage and leave the issue open for further litigation in the future? Do they grant cert and then rule it is constitutional and tell the voters of California to fix the problem themselves? Or do they rule it unconstitutional with the effect of any stating having gay marriage never being allowed to rescind that right?

My guess is that Scalia, Thomas and Alito will go with the second option, while the rest except Roberts and perhaps Kennedy going for the third option.

Realistically, I think they will choose the first option, but that is a gut feeling.

Scalia and Thomas will vote to uphold Prop 8, just as they voted to uphold many laws criminalizing homosexual acts.

Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer are likely to vote to overturn, based on their past opinions in the same arena.

Alito and Roberts are wild cards in many ways. Alito is a Mini-Scalia. Their civil rights record is spotty. Not that they have been adverse, but more there has been a shortage of a lot of civil rights suits in higher federal courts.

Sotomayor and Kagan would likely go the pro civil rights route.

What is troubling is that if this goes down as a 5-4 decision it lacks a lot of punch. And I honestly would not be shocked to see the issue revisited in 5-10 years. What people often discount is the significance in Brown v. Board of Ed being a unanimous decision. It was likely to be an 8-1 decision, but with even one dissenting judge, you leave the matter very open to be revisited.

Anti Prop 8 people, pro gay marriage arguments would do well to stick clear of any privacy arguments in front of this court. Hammering on the law being inherently suspect for specifically mentioning a single group of minorities. The fact that that group has endured a long history of systemic and real persecution and bigotry is also key.

What the Anti Prop 8 people have are 2 of the brightest legal minds alive in the US today. Olsen and Boies are just brilliant. And to see 2 lawyers of such different politics and philosophies on the same side bodes well.

KingGorilla wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Just avoid everything outside a 16 count Crayola box.

It's what I do. Works great.

16? Well Ooh La La there Mary. You get 4 colors at the IHOP, like the good lord intended!

I'm kind of surprised that no one has done a text scan of a Bible for color words and said something like, "The Bible only uses these colors: X, Y, and Z. Therefore these are the only colors that actually exist, and all the other colors are Satan's lies." Or some such.

Man, I could make a mint off that book deal.

RadioLab actually kind-of addresses the issue of how our perception of color has changed over the centuries. Basically, it was a long time before humanity recognized blue as a color.

I'd be interested in that. I know there's several african tribes that can't see orange (it simply doesn't exist for them) and there's a blue-green color that most white americans and europeans can't see.

...

I just googled that radio lab piece and it looks like it hits on that. Thanks Mike!

Seth wrote:

there's a blue-green color that most white americans and europeans can't see.

We have a blue-green called 'appelblauwzeegroen' (appleblueseagreen) in Dutch.

IMAGE(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/f9/3/AAAAC-aTXtEAAAAAAPk8vg.png?v=1286723253000)

You mean this one?

dejanzie wrote:
Seth wrote:

there's a blue-green color that most white americans and europeans can't see.

We have a blue-green called 'appelblauwzeegroen' (appleblueseagreen) in Dutch.

IMAGE(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/f9/3/AAAAC-aTXtEAAAAAAPk8vg.png?v=1286723253000)

You mean this one?

If you're going to provide an image, provide an image! Your link is obviously broken.

Back to gay marriage:

You know what I don't get?

I don't get why gay marriage opposition wasn't backed up with scads of money; at least it wasn't in Maryland. It was early on we got "VOTE NO ON QUESTION 7" flyers and sh*t and I thought, "Here we go--wait what? That's the gambling issue. Gay marriage is Question 6."

I was expecting NOM or whoever or a "grassroots" movement dump good clean Christian money into the fight, and we got nothing. The pro-Question 6 effort was last minute and ad hoc. (Note to Question 6 activists: If you can't get your sh*t together to organize an ad buy until the day before the election, how the hell are you ever going to plan a wedding?)

Was Maryland written off as Sodom? Was the NOM effort spread too thin (tee-hee) what with having to fight in several states?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Back to gay marriage:

You know what I don't get?

I don't get why gay marriage opposition wasn't backed up with scads of money; at least it wasn't in Maryland. It was early on we got "VOTE NO ON QUESTION 7" flyers and sh*t and I thought, "Here we go--wait what? That's the gambling issue. Gay marriage is Question 6."

I was expecting NOM or whoever or a "grassroots" movement dump good clean Christian money into the fight, and we got nothing. The pro-Question 6 effort was last minute and ad hoc. (Note to Question 6 activists: If you can't get your sh*t together to organize an ad buy until the day before the election, how the hell are you ever going to plan a wedding?)

Was Maryland written off as Sodom? Was the NOM effort spread too thin (tee-hee) what with having to fight in several states?

There *was* scads of money spent in Washington. However, it's worth pointing out that the pro campaign vastly out-raised the NOM-led anti campaign (through it's subsidiary Preserve Marriage Washington).

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2127380/Ga...
Supporters of gay marriage raised roughly $13.6 million for the R-74 campaign, compared to the $2.7 million brought in by their opponents, Preserve Marriage Washington.

Quite what the implication of that is, I don't know. I haven't tried to follow the money on the pro side, so I'm not sure whether that 13.6 million dollars was largely private or corporate donations.