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

Thanks for linking that response OG_Slinger, props to Senator McCoy.

derailing side question; what's the emotion of the woman in the background at 5:18? I can't tell if she wants to blurt out "bullsh*t!" or "thank you!", it looks kinda frowny and then she remembers/realizes she's on camera so forces a smile? Or maybe wants to smile but is trying to look neutral? Whatever it is I think that's the first time I've seen it.

krev82 wrote:

Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.

Although

"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."

Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf

While I'm very glad Montana made that move proactively rather than being forced, I have to agree with that Republican homophobe. Admitting that the consummation of a relationship is not a criminal act goes a long way towards legitimizing the relationship. Recognition of the fact that both kinds of sex acts are equal under the law makes it easier to show that both relationships should be. Which leads to unions, marriage, and health care.

kaostheory wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.

Although

"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."

Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf

While I'm very glad Montana made that move proactively rather than being forced, I have to agree with that Republican homophobe. Admitting that the consummation of a relationship is not a criminal act goes a long way towards legitimizing the relationship. Recognition of the fact that both kinds of sex acts are equal under the law makes it easier to show that both relationships should be. Which leads to unions, marriage, and health care.

Yeah, it's like the Scalia dissent in Lawrence--those opposed to gay rights with half a brain and the ability to be even somewhat honest with themselves realize the whole thing rests only on the ability to criminalize the associated sex act. Once they don't have that legal hook to hang their arguments on, you wind up with an opposition to gay rights that can't do better than the kind of circus we saw play out in the trial that kicked off this thread.

Looks like as of April 18th gay sex is no longer a crime in Montana, that's a start I guess, an overly belated tiny start but a start.

Although

"This isn't over," says a Republican who opposed the measure. "We will see a continual push for recognition of unions ... for health insurance. All kinds of things will come out of this."

Those dots... I do not think they have the connection you think they do... wtf

edit: After reading the responses below I realized I had read it as "recognition of unions AND health insurance" and took that to mean unions in the worker/employee union sense. Don't mind me.

The sodomy laws were always tenuous at best. The only time they really ever were used was in the course of rape or other serious matters. Not since the days of Oscar Wilde were sodomy laws enforced on a grand scale, and it is not a secret that two of the most popular sexual acts across the board are fellatio and cunnilingus. By definition, those two are sodomy. It would be a bit difficult incarcerating all the Americans that will be committing sodomy tonight.

But, there is some wisdom that decriminalizing the act will lead to greater gains for gay and lesbian Americans, which is exactly what should happen.

We really can get beyond "OMG! Those two guys are having butt sex!", not that it won't take some people decades to get their.

It wasn't about enforcing the sodomy laws themselves, it's that the sodomy laws were the legal foundation for all the *other* denials of equal rights for homosexuals. Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is basically our arguments now for why there's no constitutional reason to prevent people from entering into same-sex marriage:

But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.

what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

The French Parliament passed the final reading of its marriage equality bill by a 331-225 vote.

The bill now goes for review by the Constitutional Council who will issue an approval (barring any constitutional questions which no one believes there is) in a month.

The President of France will then sign the bill and marriage equality will arrive in France in June!

That makes me very happy as the extent and degree of public protest against marriage equality in France had me a bit concerned that their politicians might not go through with it, fingers crossed that it makes it all the way.

Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.

Hypatian wrote:

Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.

If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.

And in a somewhat stunning development, the entire Rhode Island State Senate Republican Caucus has endorsed marriage equality and will vote in favor of changing Rhode Island statute to allow for gay marriage.

Kudos to them for recognizing the direction the nation is heading.

Kudos to them for recognizing what they need to do to get reelected.

FTFY.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.

If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.

This is one of those times I don't know if I should applaud you folks or stare in mute judgement.

Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Sounds like a perfect day to have some marriage égalité fries with dinner.

If it works, I'd encourage them to be called Marriage Freedom Fries, because that irony is just too....delicious.

This is one of those times I don't know if I should applaud you folks or stare in mute judgement.

Ketchup with the times, Bloo!

Congratulation to the State of Rhode Island which will finally have marriage equality in the next week or two.

The RI Senate voted today, 26-12, to pass a marriage equality bill. That bill will now go back to the RI House and be voted on again due to some minor differences between the House and Senate version of the bill.

The House has already approved a marriage equality bill by a 51-19 vote and so a second vote is a formality.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) has already said he will sign the bill.

With Rhode Island embracing marriage equality, all states in New England now allow gay marriage, and 10 states total plus DC have marriage equality.

Kudos to the Ocean State!

I think it's time we listen to our senior citizens about...

Gay sex.

Those old folks are horny as hell.

Five more states in the process of jumping on the rainbow (happy elderly gay sex) train/parade:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/25/gay-marriage-states/2113593/

Go momentum go.

Hey.

Hey USA Today.

This is a discussion about gay marriage. Feel free to use other colors in the rainbow than 50 shades of blue.

The first? In 2013? Wow.

gore wrote:

The first? In 2013? Wow.

Another case of people seeming to forget the WNBA exists.

Bloo Driver wrote:
gore wrote:

The first? In 2013? Wow.

Another case of people seeming to forget the WNBA exists.

The general story is Collins is the first major sport athlete to come out. The WBNA is . . . not exactly a major sport, as hard as the NBA has tried to make it one.

I was just going by the actual quoted comment of "first openly gay American professional athlete." Which is why, you see, I quoted it. And then responded to it. In a tongue-in-cheek way!

Sometimes I feel like I just do not know how2forum.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I was just going by the actual quoted comment of "first openly gay American professional athlete." Which is why, you see, I quoted it. And then responded to it. In a tongue-in-cheek way!

Sometimes I feel like I just do not know how2forum.

With a thousand different people perceiving your comments with a thousand different brains and only the raw language to go by, your true intentions will never be cloudier.

LouZiffer wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I was just going by the actual quoted comment of "first openly gay American professional athlete." Which is why, you see, I quoted it. And then responded to it. In a tongue-in-cheek way!

Sometimes I feel like I just do not know how2forum.

With a thousand different people perceiving your comments with a thousand different brains and only the raw language to go by, your true intentions will never be cloudier. ;)

My pee is cloudy.

Am I foruming right?

The quote from the article is (probably) more accurate:

I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport

So whatever, I guess that's men's baseball/basketball/football/hockey. I'm still perplexed that such high profile organizations can maintain what must be an incredibly hostile culture towards homosexuals at this point in time.

gore wrote:

The quote from the article is (probably) more accurate:

I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport

So whatever, I guess that's men's baseball/basketball/football/hockey. I'm still perplexed that such high profile organizations that primarily focus on public display of masculinity and masculine (in the public's eye) performance can maintain what must be an incredibly hostile culture towards homosexuals at this point in time.

And there's your answer.

gore wrote:

I'm still perplexed that such high profile organizations can maintain what must be an incredibly hostile culture towards homosexuals at this point in time.

This is the point where I try very hard (and fail) to not make a Republican party joke.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
gore wrote:

I'm still perplexed that such high profile organizations can maintain what must be an incredibly hostile culture towards homosexuals at this point in time.

This is the point where I try very hard (and fail) to not make a Republican party joke.

There are an awful lot of 6-8 figure incomes there, stands to reason most of the professional sports world could be Republican as well.