Here are my hang-ups with the whole anti-gay marriage crowd: First, how could a group that is so vehemently against gay couples having families call themselves pro-family? I know that it's meant to imply the the other side must be "anti-family" but in reality, they are the only ones who seem to be overtly against families in any respect.
Second, how could anybody profess that something with a 50% failure rate is sacrosanct and should be maintained? I mean, the lady who married her house lives in California! Who do they think they're fooling?
Just ignorant f*ckers trying to use government to force their ignorance on society... in my state's case, it comes in the form of Constitutionally enshrined hatred.
Robear wrote:It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.
I understand that, but isn't that a policy issue, as opposed to a legal issue? I wasn't under the impression that doing things that were bad for the economy was illegal or unconstitutional.
What country do you live..oh. Canada.
Just to chime in. Economics and social dynamics play a huge role in federal decisions. Two big issues-mandatory representation of defendants and the 70's moratorium on executions were stalled for decades prior because of sound economic arguments and social dynamics.
Robear wrote:It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.
I understand that, but isn't that a policy issue, as opposed to a legal issue? I wasn't under the impression that doing things that were bad for the economy was illegal or unconstitutional.
I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote against Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
That's because if he can't come up with other reasons, the courts have a huge problem with doing things just because people don't like them today. Defendents haven't had much luck with doing things for religous reasons only lately, either. There's some discussion about this farther up-thread.
I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote against Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
Wouldn't people who vote against Prop 8 be pro-gay? I'm confused now.
momgamer wrote:I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote against Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
Wouldn't people who vote against Prop 8 be pro-gay? I'm confused now.
She just got it backwards. Do what you said and switch "against" with "for" and it makes sense.
I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote for Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
Day 6
Part 28 - Cross Examination of Mayor Sanders
Attorney for Prop. 8 brings up a paper by their star witness, Blankenhorn, that says that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that children would be raised by those who's sexual union brought them into the world. Sanders says that is still based on prejudice and that as a cop he saw plenty of biological parents that were terrible parents.
I know the struggle that gays face for equality second-hand. Not being gay, I can't know it first-hand, but my wife and I have many friends who we see is affected by this. But the statement above made by the defense insults even me and my wife. Since we can't have children, we're looking to adopt from foster care. If these zealots had their way, even our marriage would be nullified. I'm a big fan of Dan Savage and he has periodic rants on his Savage Love podcast. One of the things he always says is that first they are working to take (or limit) the rights of gays, and once they accomplish that, the rights of everyone else will be next. I'm thinking that he is right in this.
I might add, that these defendants are not very good at looking in their own back yard. If the purpose of marriage is to ensure the upbringing of biological children, then, according to their religious beliefs, Mary and Joseph should not have been married and Joseph had no business raising Jesus, as Jesus was not his biological child.
I might add, that these defendants are not very good at looking in their own back yard. If the purpose of marriage is to ensure the upbringing of biological children, then, according to their religious beliefs, Mary and Joseph should not have been married and Joseph had no business raising Jesus, as Jesus was not his biological child.
Ha!
Dysplastic wrote:momgamer wrote:I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote against Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
Wouldn't people who vote against Prop 8 be pro-gay? I'm confused now.
She just got it backwards. Do what you said and switch "against" with "for" and it makes sense.
momgamer wrote:I don't think he's trying to say it should be made on economic grounds, per se. If you read the other testimony he's trying to show the court any other reason he can find to vote for Prop 8 than anti-gay prejudice. He has to.
He's right. The point was if they want to win this case, the lawyer has to prove it should be stopped for more reasons than he and his cohorts doesn't like gays.
I am an insufficiently caffeinated lifeform today. I'm going to go fix that before I say anymore of theDumb. :blush:
He's right. The point was if they want to win this case, the lawyer has to prove it should be stopped for more reasons than he and his cohorts doesn't like gays.
I see. So the plaintiffs are just pre-empting the defence by trying to give as many reasons why its good?
(Let me interject here that Rubb Ed and I spent about $3500 on our wedding including the reception we held at a restaurant. For the sake of argument, let's say that each year 18,000 couples marry. At $3500 per couple spent on a wedding, that is $63 million that is not being spent. Everyone I know said that our wedding expenses were at the low end, which they were, so the dollar amount would be much greater. I don't know of a single state or city that would beg for a $63 million dollar influx of cash to the local economy each year.)
When my sisters-in-law got married for the last time it was about $15,000. Two bridezillas each going for the most extravagant event they could muster. Now, this was their legal marriage which was technically their fifth wedding to each other; and I'm proud to say that I am the only person outside of the happy couple who was at all five of the ceremonies. Their 1st wedding was a ceremony on a float during the Gay Pride parade, 2nd wedding was a "commitment ceremony" after signing all their Domestic Partnership paperwork, 3rd wedding was a court service ceremony after Gavin Newsom had legalized it in San Francisco, 4th wedding was actually performed by Gavin Newsom in City Hall after the state had legalized marriage and then the 5th ceremony was the biggest party you have ever seen; they were really going all out. That kind of money simply can't be ignored. Remember that for 3 of those 5 weddings there were fees paid directly to California State and the City of San Francisco; the other two weddings involved consumer money spent in the city, and thus sales and use taxes and fees. I remember the San Francisco clerk's office saying that the influx of marriage license fees and court ceremony money had a significant impact on the city's budget.
It may not be a legal argument; but the economic impact on the Federal, State, and local governments shouldn't be ignored.
About the only thing I can say is that, with the invention of the Internet, the process of discovering more about the LGBT community has become easier, especially for folks who aren't in or near big cities. Doesn't make the actual process much easier, but at least there's easier access to information that lets them know they're not the only ones feeling the way they feel.
I couldn't find it being mentioned here, but the Courage Campaign has been sued by ProtectMarriage dot com for the use of the logo (these were yanked from google images:
Protect marriage:
Courage Campaign's prop 8 Tracker:
note that The Prop8 trial tracker had the audacity to put a skirt on both stick figures.
We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.
I couldn't find it being mentioned here, but the Courage Campaign has been sued by ProtectMarriage dot com for the use of the logo (these were yanked from google images:
Protect marriage:
Courage Campaign's prop 8 Tracker:
note that The Prop8 trial tracker had the audacity to put a skirt on both stick figures.
"Prop8Trialtracker wrote:We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.
It's not a skirt, it's a KILT!
Hey Seth, that's actually right in the front page of Rubb Ed's link.
This comment is really interesting -
My friend Steve Hildebrand, who was Deputy Campaign Manager for Obama, asked if I could think of one politician who wakes up even once a year and thinks about pressure from the gays that he or she cannot withstand. The answer is clearly no.
It blatantly points out that political power is, more often than not, a measure of possible threat certain groups can levy against others. While I've always held the belief that full on cheerful embrace of gays is unrealistic as a society, if we can at least move the societal norm from "barely checked discomfort" to at least "nonaggressive indifference" that would be just swell. But the above points out that such indifference is really not going to get anyone anywhere.
Hey Seth, that's actually right in the front page of Rubb Ed's link.
No it wasn't, I had to click on the home page of Rubb's link to get to the story!
(which is more effort than I expect of readers)
Vector wrote:Hey Seth, that's actually right in the front page of Rubb Ed's link.
No it wasn't, I had to click on the home page of Rubb's link to get to the story!
(which is more effort than I expect of readers)
That's what I meant by front page.
While I'm glad that Mayor Sanders did a complete 180 on his feelings about gay marriage, I have to say that I despise people like him and those racists who have zero hour conversions and want to be forgiven for their heinous acts.
The fact that the only time these people realize they were in the wrong is when it directly affects their lives or when they have a vested interest in it is complete and utter bullsh*t.
I guess it's cool that even if it is in their twilight years people can change and realize the error of their past ways, but damn...how about doing a little more thinking at an earlier stage in your life? One foot in the grave or your own offspring coming out of the closet and NOW you have an epiphany? If there IS a God, I hope he gets downright Old Testament on your sorry asses.
I think that's a little harsh, FSeven -- although in retrospect the concept of divine grace has been a contention among us before. here's where I find fault in your post:
The fact that the only time these people realize they were in the wrong is when it directly affects their lives or when they have a vested interest in it is complete and utter bullsh*t.
I don't see how that's BS at all. Maybe you have a more optmistic view of the human condition than I do, but based on my personal experience and my experience with others, reading about stereotypes in a textbook doesn't do dick; running into direct contradictions of stereotypes in one's personal life is what changes people's minds. I was much, much more of a close minded person 15 years ago than I am now (and I'm still pretty close minded). It wasn't just a steady diet of ramen noodles or liberal lectures at Kalamazoo College that swayed me -- it was meeting people who directly confronted stereotypes that I carried with me that changed me.
I don't think it's fair to blast Mayor Sanders for changing his stance on gay marriage after he found out his daughter was gay. It's certainly much more respectable than Dick Cheney's stance on the issue.
I think that's a little harsh, FSeven -- although in retrospect the concept of divine grace has been a contention among us before. here's where I find fault in your post:
The fact that the only time these people realize they were in the wrong is when it directly affects their lives or when they have a vested interest in it is complete and utter bullsh*t.I don't see how that's BS at all. Maybe you have a more optmistic view of the human condition than I do, but based on my personal experience and my experience with others, reading about stereotypes in a textbook doesn't do dick; running into direct contradictions of stereotypes in one's personal life is what changes people's minds. I was much, much more of a close minded person 15 years ago than I am now (and I'm still pretty close minded). It wasn't just a steady diet of ramen noodles or liberal lectures at Kalamazoo College that swayed me -- it was meeting people who directly confronted stereotypes that I carried with me that changed me.
I have to 100% back Seth's comment here too. I was once pretty narrow-minded in my views on a lot of things, and the watershed moments that started my process of questioning a lot of those views were all about getting to know people personally who were living contradictions of my xenophobic views.
Looks like Day 7 wasn't a good day for Prop 8 team.
P.S. although I don't understand how the text of a sermon can not be admitted as an evidence on the First Amendment grounds. Following that logic, discovery of ANY kind of statement can successfully be thwarted. Or am I not understanding something properly?
Before the lunch break, Judge Walker is approached by attorneys for Garland and McPherson, two pastors who were supposed to be witnesses for the defense, say that they want an order of protection for the sermons and speeches the pastors gave so they cannot be admitted into evidence or displayed in court citing First Amendment protections. Judge Walker refers the motion to the Magistrate.
Someone will need to explain this one to me. Are these pastors effectively saying "you can't repeat what I said because the First Amendment protects me?" No one is prosecuting these pastors for what they said, correct (just using it as a cited example)?
I was partially homophobic until a friend of mine made a move on me in my sleep. While it was a total asshole move on his part, it did make me wonder what the real difference was between that guy making a move on me and a totally unattractive woman making a move on me. Once I started looking at guys as really, really ugly women, my opinion of the entire situation changed.
I was partially homophobic until a friend of mine made a move on me in my sleep. While it was a total asshole move on his part, it did make me wonder what the real difference was between that guy making a move on me and a totally unattractive woman making a move on me. Once I started looking at guys as really, really ugly women, my opinion of the entire situation changed.
All porn is Lesbian porn in weswilson's world.
As a pastor and preacher, my church was open to all and my sermons were public. They were often copied and put into the church bulletin the following week and openly distributed to any person who attend services. To claim that they are private documents and not meant for public consumption is garbage.
That's the part that got me. I had assumed sermons were considered public speech and that there would be no issue admitting them into court. As other said, the pastors are not on trial, it would simply be used toward the credibility of the witnesses. How the 1st ammendment comes into pay I have no idea.
I can see and understand your view Seth. I have a general loathing of most of humanity's inability to use their brain. We have all this pandering about "personal responsibility" in politics and indeed that seems to be the ethos of half this country, yet the very people pushing that view are often the ones who rely on stereotypes and form their opinions about people unlike themselves through a distinct lack of personal experience. Personal responsibility for thee but not for me, if you will.
running into direct contradictions of stereotypes in one's personal life is what changes people's minds.
That's the proof of it. I think it's completely ass backwards for people to judge an entire group of people based on a negative stereotype and only consider changing that through personal experience. It's judging the proverbial book by it's cover, a notion with longstanding theological grounding and a concept that although most of us learn from an early age we seldom actually put into practice. Oh we love to regurgitate it though and aim it at others. I understand that's basic human nature and will never likely change on a grand societal scale and that my view of it is probably idealistic but I just can't grasp the logic of it.
The sad truth is that more often than not, when someone who judges a group of people based on a stereotype has a personal experience that runs contrary to that stereotype, very rarely does one change their entire view of that group of people. Instead, people tend to carve out exceptions to their rules, which again are based on stereotypes and a distinct lack of personal experience. Even more often though, when met with evidence that points to the contrary, instead of changing their own perception they just doubt the evidence. Such as your textbook comment - reading it doesn't do dick. And that's why people, because of 1 action committed by 19 dudes, view anyone who is Muslim or looks Arabic as a terrorist despite the fact that the US has had over 140 acts of terrorism committed by, according to FBI data, white males who self-identified as Christian in the past 40 years yet don't view white Christian males by and large as terrorists. That's why people can view blacks as violent criminals despite the fact that, according to the DoJ, 36 million African-Americans are law abiding citizens and less than 1 million are criminals. Judging the character of a group of people based on the actions of 1 million max of it's members rather than the inactions of the other 36 million? It's a complete lack of personal experience and a total disregard for facts. Yet instead of taking that lack of experience as a basis for not assuming the traits and behavior of a group of people and perhaps using it as motivation to actually find out what these people are like, humans take the lowest common denominator and use that to shoebox groups of people until something comes along which challenges that belief. Again - totally ass backwards in my opinion and while I understand it, is a logic that I can't fathom or even feel that my brain could process properly without at some point having the thought "this is complete bullsh*t".
Perhaps, ironically, I'm basing my feelings on a stereotype - that most people fail to apply common sense or basic logic to these matters or at the very least fail to practice what they preach ("Don't judge a book by it's cover!" and demands for others to accept personal responsibility) - but I've only seen evidence supporting my view.
To be honest Seth, I think I have a rather bleakly Carlin-esque view of humanity. I think we'll wipe ourselves out long before we ever get this stuff right.
And wes...wow...I'm surprised an experience like that wouldn't have further entrenched you in homophobia.
I can see where you're coming from, FSeven, but I think part of the problem is that people don't always realize that a stereotype is a stereotype. If you were raised in an environment that perpetuates a stereotype, and never see any evidence to the contrary, then why would you doubt it? It's like doubting gravity. It's blatantly obvious from the outside looking in, but for the other guy that stereotype is just another fundamental truth. It's true that we should always strive to question our own beliefs, but sometimes it's hard to know which ones to question. We can't spend all day questioning everything we know, so at some point we have to compromise and accept certain statements as fact.
People who see evidence that contradicts a stereotype, and still refuse to question that stereotype are definitely bad people. People who instead choose to reconsider their opinions may not necessarily be good people, but at least they're trying to be.
Pages