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

Paleocon wrote:

I know I have posted about it before, but any time someone mentions the "homosexual agenda" I immediately think of the wonderful piece that Betty Bowers did exposing the real deal. ;)

And of course PhoenixRev supplied an hour-by-hour breakdown in an earlier thread.

I still feel that the first item in the "homosexual agenda" is "reading the minutes from the last meeting."

Hypatian wrote:

The answer is "Why do you imagine that homosexual couples have more sex than heterosexual couples? And what makes you think it's okay to pry into my sex life?"

Any question like that which reduces someone to a sex object is really ridiculously insulting. It's a similar thing for trans folk and having people ask questions that imply that the only thing that matters is what's between your legs.

Too many words for that sort of question. I think saying "Fabulous!" and then thrust wildly at them will get the point across. Or a sad shake of the head followed by muttering "You must have a depressing sex life..." because that's what I think of those people.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I know I have posted about it before, but any time someone mentions the "homosexual agenda" I immediately think of the wonderful piece that Betty Bowers did exposing the real deal. ;)

And of course PhoenixRev supplied an hour-by-hour breakdown in an earlier thread.

That was this thread! It's just so huge that it became the Catch-All.

Vector wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

The answer is "Why do you imagine that homosexual couples have more sex than heterosexual couples? And what makes you think it's okay to pry into my sex life?"

Any question like that which reduces someone to a sex object is really ridiculously insulting. It's a similar thing for trans folk and having people ask questions that imply that the only thing that matters is what's between your legs.

Too many words for that sort of question. I think saying "Fabulous!" and then thrust wildly at them will get the point across.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Well, it's notable that one of my big gripes with Huntsman during the election was his "traditional marriage" stance. I liked him as a person and candidate a lot, but he didn't hedge or equivocate on the issue - he was definitely in the "marriage is a man and a woman" camp. I would have tolerated him dodging or evading the question, but he was pretty direct.

I'm glad to see he's openly changed his stance, but it is still something to keep in mind.

Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Nice; had a feeling a year ago about this.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Well, it's notable that one of my big gripes with Huntsman during the election was his "traditional marriage" stance. I liked him as a person and candidate a lot, but he didn't hedge or equivocate on the issue - he was definitely in the "marriage is a man and a woman" camp. I would have tolerated him dodging or evading the question, but he was pretty direct.

I'm glad to see he's openly changed his stance, but it is still something to keep in mind.

He was always respectful but I don't think one could run for President in the Republican party in 2012 with that position. I'm hoping in 2016 both parties are for marriage equality.

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

Tanglebones wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

One of the comments actually made an interesting post about how the Conservative movement needs to divorce itself from its hodgepodge of baggage including the Evangelical movement. This would certainly allow them to try (seeing as how Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about limited governmental power and not interfering with people's lives if they aren't hurting yours)... but I doubt it'll ever even come close to happening.

Demosthenes wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

One of the comments actually made an interesting post about how the Conservative movement needs to divorce itself from its hodgepodge of baggage including the Evangelical movement. This would certainly allow them to try (seeing as how Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about limited governmental power and not interfering with people's lives if they aren't hurting yours)... but I doubt it'll ever even come close to happening.

Nope. The GOP will spend the next four years trying to enact as many voting restrictions as possible, because the only chance they have to be viable in national elections without making significant changes is to keep as many people as possible from voting. It's easier to crap on the notion of democracy rather than face the fact the nation has moved pretty sharply away from their viewpoints.

The Republican party cannot win a national election while being hostile to large groups of Americans. We cannot engage them on an argument on the size, scope, and role of government while antagonizing their lifestyle or where they and their families come from. I think if the Republicans followed the conservative argument for marriage quality, modernized on immigration that we could win national elections much easier. However, I feel that Milkman is right that they are going to try to limit voters for another cycle as a way to win an election. People don't want to talk to us about how the intersection of government and capitalism came about because of the need for the government to be involved with everything. They don't want to hear about how difficult and expensive we make it to start a business or maintain a business due to regulation that often is put into place as a way to pay back established players. There are all sorts of arguments that the Republicans can win on but while the party hates gay people and wants to kick Hispanics out of the country it's not going to work.

One core belief I don't want the party to give up is the whole culture of life but I wish they would come down against the death penalty and institute some common sense gun control measures (I'm pro-registration but I'm not really a gun person) as well as being against abortion. Republicans spend more time talking about abortion than the death penalty and that doesn't make sense. The Republican party belongs to the Southern Evangelicals/Baptists and they've kicked out the Northeast, Western, and Catholic constitutes.

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

Seth wrote:

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

All the while being viewed negatively while they flail their arms shouting "Obama's fault!" and wondering why that's not helping them with anyone other than the people who were already voting for them anyway.

correct.

And honestly I think this is the best way. There are good things about the Republican Party. I'd even say there are great things about it. But I don't see those things coming to the fore unless the whole damn thing is starved beyond the point of recovery so talks of reform sour and talks of official schism look reasonable.

....at least, I can hope.

Seth wrote:

correct.

And honestly I think this is the best way. There are good things about the Republican Party. I'd even say there are great things about it. But I don't see those things coming to the fore unless the whole damn thing is starved beyond the point of recovery so talks of reform sour and talks of official schism look reasonable.

....at least, I can hope.

Really, as long as they are the party where compromise is a dirty word, they can be sure not to get a vote from me.

Demosthenes wrote:
Seth wrote:

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

All the while being viewed negatively while they flail their arms shouting "Obama's fault!" and wondering why that's not helping them with anyone other than the people who were already voting for them anyway. :P

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljcu5dnQgG1qbs0uj.gif)

Late Friday, the Obama Administration filed a brief with the SCOTUS encouraging the high court to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional:

The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against gays and lesbians still continues. The brief cited California’s flat ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing problem of bias against homosexuals.

In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the question of whether the administration was getting into position to come out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure. It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality, and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed — United States v.Windsor (12-307).

In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case. That 1996 law’s Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal benefits or programs based on marriage.

The brief continued the efforts by the administration, begun two years ago tomorrow, to persuade the courts to adopt a rigorous test when they judged laws that discriminated against gays and lesbians. Instead of the much more tolerant “rational basis” test, the government has been pressing for what is called “heightened scrutiny.” And Friday’s brief defended that approach energetically.

Although it may not sway the Court, it is a significant milestone that the executive branch is now firmly in the marriage equality camp.

“Our study suggests that the more heterosexual men, especially less educated heterosexual men, watch pornography, the more supportive they become of same-sex marriage,”

...

Researchers believe that regular exposure to the wild, wacky world of porn may cause straight men to be more accepting of a range of sexual preferences and situations. If these men think “individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to have same-sex sex, they will also think that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to get married to a partner of the same-sex,”

LINK

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, on Wednesday filed House Bill 1568, which would reduce a school district’s healthcare funding by 7.5 percent if they offer DP benefits to anyone other than an employee or a dependent of an employee.

“Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships,” Springer said in a release. “To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.”

Nope. That's not discriminatory at all.

Hypatian wrote:

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, on Wednesday filed House Bill 1568, which would reduce a school district’s healthcare funding by 7.5 percent if they offer DP benefits to anyone other than an employee or a dependent of an employee.

“Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships,” Springer said in a release. “To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.”

Nope. That's not discriminatory at all.

That's cool. Let's hold much-needed education funding effectively hostage if a public school district doesn't adhere to his/his constituent's religious convictions.

Screw you, Springer.

Nicholaas wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, on Wednesday filed House Bill 1568, which would reduce a school district’s healthcare funding by 7.5 percent if they offer DP benefits to anyone other than an employee or a dependent of an employee.

“Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships,” Springer said in a release. “To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.”

Nope. That's not discriminatory at all.

That's cool. Let's hold much-needed education funding effectively hostage if a public school district doesn't adhere to his/his constituent's religious convictions.

Screw you, Springer.

In a horrific way, his thinking is oddly interally consistent. He is no friend to public education funding anyway, so whatever outcome of this legislation is positive to him.

"Bankrolling a lifestyle" is the most amazingly hilarious thing in that whole article.

Nicholaas wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, on Wednesday filed House Bill 1568, which would reduce a school district’s healthcare funding by 7.5 percent if they offer DP benefits to anyone other than an employee or a dependent of an employee.

“Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships,” Springer said in a release. “To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.”

Nope. That's not discriminatory at all.

That's cool. Let's hold much-needed education funding effectively hostage if a public school district doesn't adhere to his/his constituent's religious convictions.

Screw you, Springer.

It's cute that you think Texas should put education ahead of religion. They are successfully teaching creationism in public schools too.

Bloo Driver wrote:

"Bankrolling a lifestyle" is the most amazingly hilarious thing in that whole article.

He must be talking about those lavish "Broadway in Pflugerville" productions.

Democracy as mob rule, the nightmare of the Son's of Liberty.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

"Bankrolling a lifestyle" is the most amazingly hilarious thing in that whole article.

He must be talking about those lavish "Broadway in Pflugerville" productions.

As a Pflugervillain, they're pretty fabulous.

Westboro church files a brief in the DOMA case. Among their arguments, "Of all the harms that a society can face, none are worse than incurring the wrath of God by a blatant policy of defiance of and disobedience to His plain standard."

Kevin Underhill has this to say:

Normally, when briefing the issue of whether a statute violates the Constitution it is customary to refer to that Constitution, but as Mazzone points out, Westboro may now have "the surely unprecedented distinction of authoring a brief to the Supreme Court on a constitutional question that makes not a single mention of the Constitution itself."

It is probably also the first such brief to cite as authority a letter some guy in Australia wrote to the editor of the Topeka Capital-Journal, but I haven't done the research to know for sure.

To be entirely accurate, there are two references to the First Amendment in the brief, although both references appear in quotations, not the argument itself. The argument, to the extent there is one, seems to be that the Establishment Clause doesn't mean government has to be hostile to religion. That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean it has to be friendly to hostile religious people. And that's as close as the brief gets to citing the Constitution.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

"Bankrolling a lifestyle" is the most amazingly hilarious thing in that whole article.

He must be talking about those lavish "Broadway in Pflugerville" productions.

As a Pflugervillain, they're pretty pfabulous.

FTFY.

Tanglebones wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

"Bankrolling a lifestyle" is the most amazingly hilarious thing in that whole article.

He must be talking about those lavish "Broadway in Pflugerville" productions.

As a Pflugervillain, they're pretty pfabulous.

PTPY.