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

Nevin73 wrote:

Anyone know what ever happened with Dan Savage's invite to Brian Brown for dinner and a debate?

It was splendid.

Brown, of course, went on to be a dick about it later, but the actual event was cool.

Thanks for that...I missed hearing about the follow-up. I'll enjoy listening to it later.

Demosthenes wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NSMike wrote:

With Joe Biden as the tie breaker, that's technically a majority of the Senate for gay marriage.

...and now take a look at the count in the house.

Unless you want to have a good day, in which case, just skip that part.

Also, who are those seven democrats not supporting equal rights? If one of them is mine, I'm going to go nuts in a letter to that jerkwad.

IMAGE(http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2013/04/barney%20frank%20quote.jpg)

Oh, good LORD!

The people over at NOM have truly lost their collective minds.

Over the weekend, NOM posted this graph on their Facebook page:

IMAGE(http://www.feastinginphoenix.com/images/NOMgraph.JPG)

The commentary they put with the graph said:

Marriage rates down, out-of-wedlock birth rates up. Conservatives may have correctly predicted the consequences of same-sex marriage.

Seriously?

The graph runs from from 1960 to 2010, but NOM is claiming that the six years of marriage equality (Massachusetts had gay marriage start in 2004) started the decline in heterosexual marriage and an increase in out-of-wedlock births.

Wow. We gays are so powerful that we can have our future acts influence the past which knows categorically what the future will be.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Seriously, the desperation of the people at NOM have turned them into sociopaths.

Step 1: Figure out if gay marriage's acausal effects can be modulated somehow: Repeatedly legalizing/outlawing gay marriage? Mass marriage and divorce ceremonies?
Step 2: Encode messages to the past in US census data.
Step 3: Laugh in the face of causality. Seize control of all possible timelines.
Step 4: Become Time Lords. Construct TARDISes powered by gay marriage certificates.

@Phoenix Rev I always knew you guys were smart enough to be the first to invent time travel. Would you mind dropping me of in 1997 so I can watch Brian Molko and David Bowie sing Without You I'm Nothing?

I had a dream where I time traveled to Germany shortly before WW2 last night. Now I have to wonder if it really was a dream. Maybe my gay coworker has been taking me on Adventures, and my weak heterosexual psyche is having trouble swallowing the realities of time travel.

That chart is making me wonder if I am color blind. Are Black males the 35 percent one? Would it have killed them to use another color than blue shades? Scratch that, they would have used yellow shades.

KingGorilla wrote:

That chart is making me wonder if I am color blind. Are Black males the 35 percent one? Would it have killed them to use another color than blue shades? Scratch that, they would have used yellow shades.

I think the reason for the chart having a lack of layered, arcing lines of diverse color should be obvious.

KingGorilla wrote:

Are Black males the 35 percent one?

They are yeah, but I had to zoom in and use process of elimination to determine that. If you must use that style of data line you could at least make things a decent resolution and have some anti-aliasing in your plot.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Seriously?

The graph runs from from 1960 to 2010, but NOM is claiming that the six years of marriage equality (Massachusetts had gay marriage start in 2004) started the decline in heterosexual marriage and an increase in out-of-wedlock births.

Wow. We gays are so powerful that we can have our future acts influence the past which knows categorically what the future will be.

My god, you gays are even more powerful than NOM thinks.

You went back even further in time and convinced Rosie the Riveter to have a kid before she got married.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/VY3aJkA.png)

And you gays have been encouraging more and more couples to live together in sin.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/plLt7mG.png)

I don't know which is worse: cohabitating couples having and raising children out of the holy bonds of wedlock or cohabitating couples making a mockery of their sacred duty to society and f*cking without making babies.

Even more frightening, you gays have obviously established a global fifth column and are making more and more women around the world have children out of wedlock.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Jtrdg2j.png)

The evidence is overwhelming. Either gays have developed time travel technology and built a global network of nuptial saboteurs or people all over the world are rejecting the religiously driven ideal that people can only bang once an old man in a funny hat or dress tells them they can. Since it can't possibly be true that heterosexuals are the group that is most responsible for undermining the institution of marriage, it must therefore be the fault of time traveling gays.

Even more frightening, you gays have obviously established a global fifth column and are making more and more women around the world have children out of wedlock.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/JP2D9xP.jpg)

Tanglebones wrote:
Even more frightening, you gays have obviously established a global fifth column and are making more and more women around the world have children out of wedlock.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/JP2D9xP.jpg)

I just doubled over in laughter. During a conference call. Tanglebones wins the week.

I find it most amusing because all of those statistics have been used by the Gay Rights Movement as a point of "your sanctity of marriage argument is laughable at best based upon societal trends".

Jujitsu-ing your opponent's strengths into weaknesses is a good idea... except when it makes no f*cking sense like here. A few years of marriage equality in a few states is enough to affect society for decades prior (during times where the majority and further back the overwhelming majority were against gay rights and had no expectation of that changing?)? You guys are teh dumbs.

Demosthenes wrote:

I find it most amusing because all of those statistics have been used by the Gay Rights Movement as a point of "your sanctity of marriage argument is laughable at best based upon societal trends".

NOM also tries to spin marriage as the sacred union of a male and female when a simple look at history will tell you that marriage has nearly always been about locking away a woman so that a man can be reasonably certain that his wealth and property would be inherited by his male offspring and not a bastard.

Marriage didn't become an actual "sacred sacrament" recognized by the Church until the 13th century. And love didn't enter the picture for another 500 or so years. Hell, the modern concept of marriage--a young man marrying a young women because they're madly in love and without any concern of what their parents or extended family think--is only about 200 years old.

At best, NOM's core argument against gay marriage is based on a willful misinterpretation of marriage throughout the ages because of their particular distorted interpretation of Christianity.

OG_slinger wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

I find it most amusing because all of those statistics have been used by the Gay Rights Movement as a point of "your sanctity of marriage argument is laughable at best based upon societal trends".

NOM also tries to spin marriage as the sacred union of a male and female when a simple look at history will tell you that marriage has nearly always been about locking away a woman so that a man can be reasonably certain that his wealth and property would be inherited by his male offspring and not a bastard.

Marriage didn't become an actual "sacred sacrament" recognized by the Church until the 13th century. And love didn't enter the picture for another 500 or so years. Hell, the modern concept of marriage--a young man marrying a young women because they're madly in love and without any concern of what their parents or extended family think--is only about 200 years old.

At best, NOM's core argument against gay marriage is based on a willful misinterpretation of marriage throughout the ages because of their particular distorted interpretation of Christianity.

Elizabeth needs to open a tear where that place is just an ice cream stand with free sprinkles already. That ice cream stand would do more good in the world than NOM.

OG, you are trying to use facts and reason. This debate does not take place in that realm. Look at the Bible Thread's talk of whether Jesus can beat up Superman. Hell, these people think that every Early American was an Evangelical Christian.

KingGorilla wrote:

OG, you are trying to use facts and reason. This debate does not take place in that realm. Look at the Bible Thread's talk of whether Jesus can beat up Superman.

I would love to see Robot Chicken do that fight.

KingGorilla wrote:

OG, you are trying to use facts and reason. This debate does not take place in that realm. Look at the Bible Thread's talk of whether Jesus can beat up Superman.

I would hope that facts and reasons mattered to SCOTUS and that they aren't going to make a far-reaching legal decision based the fairly tale definition of marriage NOM put forward.

NOM has opened themselves up to facts and reason because they were trying to argue about the purpose and definition of marriage. Once that door is opened you have to listen to what historians and anthropologists have to say about the institution of marriage.

To me this is very similar to previous attempts of the uber-religious to inject creationism into schools. There the debate was also driven by their irrational fear and an exceptionally poor understanding of evolution. They also made outrageous claims about the negative societal effects--everything from atheism and homosexuality to bestiality and genocide--that would happen because people believed in evolution and grossly misinterpreted and tortured data to support their untenable position.

Luckily our courts have consistently (well, recently consistently) said that facts and reason do matter and, indeed, trump religious hocus pocus in cases like this.

French Senate adopts key article of same sex marriage bill.

France24 wrote:

Debating late into the night on Tuesday, France’s Senate voted to approve a key article of a controversial bill to legalise same-sex marriage and adoption, which redefines marriage as a union between “two individuals of different sex or of the same sex”. The measure passed with a decisive majority of 179 votes to 157.

[...]

Despite approving a key article of the bill, the Senate must now complete reviewing the legislation, which could take weeks. Once voted, the text is expected to go back to the National Assembly in late May, which already approved the measure a little more than a month ago. There it will be put up to a final vote, and if adopted, the bill will then be made into law.

a decisive majority of 179 votes to 157

...

...

...

That... doesn't seem that decisive. Or is it just me?

France can be even more Sectarian than our own government. Political parties are often very regional and small-maybe 3-4 elected officials.

From the France Senate wiki:

Senators are elected indirectly by approximately 150,000 officials ("grands électeurs"), including regional councilors, department councilors, mayors, city councilors in large towns, and members of the National Assembly. However, 90% of the electors are delegates appointed by councilors. This system introduces a bias in the composition of the Senate favoring rural areas. As a consequence, while the political majority changes frequently in the National Assembly, the Senate has remained politically conservative since the foundation of the Fifth Republic, much to the displeasure of the Socialists.[5] This has spurred controversy, especially after the September 2009 senatorial elections[6] in which the (left-wing) Socialist Party, despite controlling all but two of France's regions, a majority of départements, and communes representing more than 50% of the population, still failed to achieve a majority in the Senate. The Senate has also been accused of being a "refuge" for politicians that have lost their seats in the National Assembly.
Twelve senators are elected to represent French citizens living outside the Republic.[7]

Current composition:

Political groups UMP (131)[1] = Conservative
Socialist (128)[1] = Progressive
UDI-UC (32)[1] = Center
Communist (20)[1]
RDSE (18)[1]
EELV (12)[1] = Green Party
Non-Registred (7)[1

That vote definitely is decisive when you're used to seeing only a few votes difference between the yays and the nays. And yes, the French Senate traditionally is conservative, but was overturned during the last election. It's not much a surprise that it would have voted to the left.

KingGorilla wrote:

France can be even more Sectarian than our own government. Political parties are often very regional and small-maybe 3-4 elected officials.

While it is true that France has a wide variety of political parties to choose from, this is absolutely not for "regional" reasons. The different parties will reflect the wide spectrum from left to right, including both extremes, a center, a center right, right and left. But as dejanzie pointed out, the lion's share usually goes to the right (UMP) and the left (socialist) parties.

Time for a big gay roundup!

Congratulations to Uruguay! The small South American nation becomes the 12th nation worldwide to embrace marriage equality, and the vote wasn't even close: 71-21 on the final bill in their Assembly (the bill passed the Uruguay Senate last week in a 23-8 vote). The President of Uruguay has been a champion of the bill and will sign it in two week.

Uruguay: More progressive than most U.S. states!

----------

Both the Montana House and Senate have finally voted to updated the Big Sky state's "sexual deviancy" laws to conform with rulings by the Montana Supreme Court and the SCOTUS stating that laws prohibiting adult consensual sex are unconstitutional. Still, 36 Republicans (natch!) in the Montana House voted against the measure by stating that sodomy is a violation of Biblical principles.

No word on when any of those 36 members of the GOP will be introducing a bill to repeal the state's divorce laws since divorce (with the possible exception of infidelity) is a violation of Biblical principles.

----------

Meanwhile, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli is trying as hard as he can to get any federal court to say that Virginia's sodomy laws that are still on the books are constitutional. Cuccinelli has been fighting to have the felony conviction of a 47-year-old man (who tried to solicit sex from several minors) sustained based on the sodomy law because that law is the only thing that would provide a felony conviction. (Interesting side note: the Virginia sodomy statutes applies to all people, including married couples, and is very clear that it outlaws oral sex as well.)

The federal district court, the 3-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and now the full 15-judge panel of the same appeals court have told Cuccinelli that the Virginia statute is blatantly unconstitutional.

And now the twist: shortly after the Lawrence v. Texas case from the SCOTUS that made all sodomy laws unconstitutional, a bipartisan bill was introduced into the Virginia legislature that would have modified the VA sodomy law to conform to the standards set down in Lawrence v. Texas.

But a member of the Virginia Senate helped to lead the charge to keep the sodomy law intact so that Virginia could send a message that teh gayz are filthy sinners.

That senator?

Ken Cuccinelli.

----------

Speaking of Attorneys General, the AG of Washington State is now suing a florist for discriminating against a gay couple who were getting married. Washington State law forbids businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in issues of public accommodation and commerce.

However, the florist thinks she has a right to discriminate against the couple because of her religious beliefs:

So when it was time to make preparations for their September 19th, Rob wanted to go with the florist he and Curt have been using for years, Barronelle Stuzman, the owner of Arelene's Flowers in Richland.

However, when he asked her, Stuzman politely declined. "And I just took his hands and I said I'm sorry I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ," said Stuzman who believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.

And, of course, the good folks over at NOM clutched their pearls, twisted their knickers, and collapsed onto the sofa in bitter tears:

Like clockwork, those who disagree with gay marriage are being fined and forced out of the public square -- by the state-imposed redefinition of marriage.

That "state-imposed redefinition of marriage" would be by the voters of Washington State.

You know, the people NOM wanted to have vote on the Washington State marriage equality referendum.

----------

And, finally, we are approximately two months away from the SCOTUS rulings on Prop. 8 and DOMA.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Uruguay: More progressive than most U.S. states!

Well, duh!

More seriously:

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, finally, we are approximately two months away from the SCOTUS rulings on Prop. 8 and DOMA.

Expected to be actual rulings? Or are the matters behind whether the Court should take the cases to begin with still up in the air?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Expected to be actual rulings? Or are the matters behind whether the Court should take the cases to begin with still up in the air?

Well, even if the SCOTUS declines standing and jurisdiction, those are - technically - rulings. Not satisfactory by any means, but still rulings.

And THIS is exactly why domestic partnerships, civil unions, powers of attorney, health care proxies, etc. etc. etc. never carry the same weight as a marriage license:

LEE’S SUMMIT, Mo. — A Lee’s Summit man is fighting a restraining order that he says was issued against him after he says he was arrested for refusing to leave the bedside of his sick partner.

Roger Gorley went to visit his partner, Allen at Research Medical Center, 2316 E. Meyer Blvd., Tuesday afternoon.

He says when he got there, a member of Allen’s family asked him to leave.

When Gorley refused, he says hospital security forcibly removed him from the property and put him in handcuffs.

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley said.

While not legally recognized as a couple in Missouri, Gorley says he and his partner Allen have been in a civil union for nearly five years, and make medical decisions for each other.

He says the nurse refused to verify they also share joint Power of Attorney.

And this could absolutely happen to Rubb Ed and me if something were to happen to either of us in a state that doesn't recognize our marriage.

We have powers of attorney, health care proxies, living wills, and on and on and on and it can all be rendered meaningless by a family member or an idiotic nurse that is too lazy to do his or her damn job.

I hope Gorley sues the hell out of the medical center for not looking at the POA.

I guess steak and bj day is not a big hit in the cucinelli household.

Paleocon wrote:

I guess steak and bj day is not a big hit in the cucinelli household.

Yeah, I heard about this while listening to the Savage Love podcast this morning. You'd think more straight guys (at least) would be against sodomy laws. I'd love it if Larry Flynt came riding (or rolling) out of the horizon with pics of Cucinelli getting some oral love.