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

Bloo Driver wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Specifically, they asking the GOP leadership to allow a conscience vote on the issue (i.e. GOP members will be allowed to vote against the party line without repercussions). Apparently, some members of the NJ GOP disagree with Christie and want to vote to override his veto, but fear the consequences because of Christie's power and popularity.

I'm sorry to sound sarcastic, but how exactly do they plan to achieve this? Through everyone putting their heads down on their desks and doing a raised-hand count? How do you convince a political party of any stripe not to hold breaking ranks against someone?

Anonymous voting?

Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

This would worry me if at any point I thought they were actually attempting to represent the vote of the people.

In reality, conscience vote is what should be happening every time since that's what they sold the voters during the election. It's not like the commercials said "I will vote the party line every time. Vote for me."

Edit: I also think this situation speaks volumes about the marriage-equality fight.

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

I get what you're saying, but I was more speaking to the point that it was a "do what the Party says, or else" situation that the idea of a conscience vote seems to have sprung from. That's a problem. It's certainly ALSO a problem that people will make the self-righteous moral appeal to their conscience and vote against what their constituents may have shown they would want.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

This would worry me if at any point I thought they were actually attempting to represent the vote of the people.

In reality, conscience vote is what should be happening every time since that's what they sold the voters during the election. It's not like the commercials said "I will vote the party line every time. Vote for me."

Edit: I also think this situation speaks volumes about the marriage-equality fight.

...touche. Oh man, that makes me feel even worse about it. I totally knew all of this in the back of my head, but thinking about it in this light is kind of depressing.

Party line voting and conscience voting make a bit more sense in the context of a multi-party parliamentary system. Under the assumption that your party is part of a coalition, and that your party leadership is working in good faith with the leadership of the other parties in the coalition to craft compromises to support the goals of all of the participating parties, that kind of policy is an attempt to continue to maintain leadership of the coalition and to actually legislate (i.e. do their jobs) even if sometimes the fine details aren't an exact match for party policies. Of course, if the party leadership routinely abuse that, there's going to be dissension in the ranks. If the compromises routinely ignore the goals of some of the parties in the coalition, that will break the coalition and possibly lead to the majority coalition's loss of leadership, etc.

In a two-party system, they still make a little bit of sense, under the assumption that the leadership of the two parties is working to craft practical compromises to make it easier to pass legislation (i.e. do their jobs). And again, if the party leadership abuses it, or the goals of the minority party are abused by the majority party, or the party leadership fails to adequately explain the reasoning behind the compromises, etc. it falls apart.

Unfortunately, it also falls apart when one or more of the parties involved aren't actually trying to craft compromises.

IMAGE(http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/debate.png)

NSMike wrote:

IMAGE(http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/debate.png)

...I sooooo want to put that on my cube wall, but I suspect I'd get in trouble for not being inclusive of other people's religious beliefs... and yes, my brain would explode at the irony of that.

On today's edition of "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson pines for a "Vomit" button on Facebook for photos of gay people.

What you’re saying is, “Yes, I like this kind of thing.” You’ve got a couple of same-sex guys kissing. You “Like” that. Well, that makes me want to throw up. To me, I would punch “Vomit,” not “Like”… They don’t give you that option on Facebook.

Here's the video:

So, let me see if I have this right...

Two guys kissing is vomit inducing, but a televangelist who fleeces people out of their money so he can live a lavish lifestyle is just peachy keen?

I wish that were actually true. I wish he really did vomit when he saw them. I would post pictures on his FB page all day long.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

On today's edition of "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson pines for a "Vomit" button on Facebook for photos of gay people.

What you’re saying is, “Yes, I like this kind of thing.” You’ve got a couple of same-sex guys kissing. You “Like” that. Well, that makes me want to throw up. To me, I would punch “Vomit,” not “Like”… They don’t give you that option on Facebook.

Here's the video:

So, let me see if I have this right...

Two guys kissing is vomit inducing, but a televangelist who fleeces people out of their money so he can live a lavish lifestyle is just peachy keen?

This man is such a parody of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Kindness? Loving? Faith that God knows more than you do? There's none of that with Pat Robertson. If he showed up on air with a "God Hates Fags" sign, I wouldn't be remotely shocked.

I think he should be flogged for wearing an electric blue sport coat.

This man is such a parody of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Kindness? Loving? Faith that God knows more than you do? There's none of that with Pat Robertson. If he showed up on air with a "God Hates Fags" sign, I wouldn't be remotely shocked.

To be fair, he's been doing that without the sign for a while, as evidenced (apparently, YouTube blockage at work be damned) by that video.

Still makes him a tool who apparently failed the main lesson of the Bible, but ya know, that's never stopped any other money-hoarding at the expense of his flock TV-evangelist.

I have absolutely reached my fill of anti-gay bigots that demand that LGBT folks and their allies not take issue with their bigotry.

The most recent bigot to spout this crap is none other than Orson Scott Card.

Card is notoriously anti-gay and has been a strong supporter of NOM. He is so anti-gay that he stated that if the government allowed gay marriage, he would "act to destroy that government and bring it down."

Now that Section 3 of DOMA and Prop. 8 have fallen, Card is all but begging that everyone just chill and respect him and his views and stop the talk about boycotting his movie "Ender's Game."

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Oh, Sweet Jesus. The irony is so damn thick, you would need a warehouse full of chainsaws to cut it.

Here is a man who has actively worked to crush my marriage to Rubb Ed and the marriage of all other gays and lesbians across this nation and, now, when a boycott is called, he plays the martyr begging for tolerance from the marriage equality forces.

Unbelievable.

I'm surprised the studio doesn't have a tracking anklet and gag order on him to shut the hell up before his movie comes out on DVD and blu-ray.

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

I do recall that the protagonist in A Planet Called Treason (one of his earlier novels) develops hermaphroditic mutations, for which he becomes exiled, and he even passes as a woman for a while. That might be an interesting one to re-read if you want to examine Card's exploration of gender in fiction (I was too young when I read it to retain more than just a vague memory at this point).

Interestingly last week's Conference Call discusses how difficult it is to divorce an author from his or her works, and whether one should "take a stand" against a work by an author who has repugnant views. My perception (again, many years removed) of Ender's Game is that it's a good work of fiction which does not reflect the author's unfortunate bigotry.

In Card's The Homecoming Saga, he has a gay character make himself have sex with a woman so that they can have kids.

gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

I think I've heard this story before. Vocal anti-gay spokesbigot turns out to be a big fabulous homo...

Not saying anything new here, but I don't care what he does, or thinks in his private life; as soon as he crosses the line into public advocacy, and major donations in support of movements to deny rights to people, he loses my financial support.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

In Card's The Homecoming Saga, he has a gay character make himself have sex with a woman so that they can have kids.

He doesn't particularly enjoy it though. Plus that series is one big religious circle jerk where everyone who loves "God" (literally a magical sky computer) is good and decent and such and everyone who rejects him wanting to go their own way in life is evil and selfish and likely to cause the end of humanity.

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

This seems like a pretty shocking violation of the separation of church and state.

Tanglebones wrote:

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

This seems like a pretty shocking violation of the separation of church and state.

This is ... amazing. Out of one side of their mouth, the GOP is scaring people with the spectre of government meddling with the church and forcing churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Out of the other side, they enact the sort of meddling that they invented but tried to pin on someone else.

Bravo!

KingGorilla wrote:
gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

You mean the murderous attack on a small child by a much larger one where the younger child accidentally kills the older one that just so happened to take place in a shower?

To quote Hawkeye, "You and I remember Budapest very differently."

Ender's Game didn't give me much in that regard, just because the characters are so very young. Not saying it's not messed up all over the place, just not so overtly that way.

If you want to talk some of his other work, someone already mentioned "Treason". Or you could try "Songbird", which includes eunuchs, long quasi-platonic bromances that end in people being castrated and then killing themselves.

KingGorilla wrote:
gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

It still shocks me how the same sexual tension is ignored when watching two oiled up men grinding in a choreographed display of male prowess. It may as well be a Queen concert.

Demosthenes wrote:

Plus that series is one big religious circle jerk where everyone who loves "God" (literally a magical sky computer) is good and decent and such and everyone who rejects him wanting to go their own way in life is evil and selfish and likely to cause the end of humanity.

So... just like real life then?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

This seems like a pretty shocking violation of the separation of church and state.

This is ... amazing. Out of one side of their mouth, the GOP is scaring people with the spectre of government meddling with the church and forcing churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Out of the other side, they enact the sort of meddling that they invented but tried to pin on someone else.

Bravo!

Is this even legal? Can you make a religious ceremony (that doesn't actually break existing laws) a crime?

Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Plus that series is one big religious circle jerk where everyone who loves "God" (literally a magical sky computer) is good and decent and such and everyone who rejects him wanting to go their own way in life is evil and selfish and likely to cause the end of humanity.

So... just like real life then?

Is that the one where he basically novelizes the Book of Mormon, even down to names of characters?

momgamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Plus that series is one big religious circle jerk where everyone who loves "God" (literally a magical sky computer) is good and decent and such and everyone who rejects him wanting to go their own way in life is evil and selfish and likely to cause the end of humanity.

So... just like real life then?

Is that the one where he basically novelizes the Book of Mormon, even down to names of characters?

Yup. The first book of that is where I stopped trying to read him any further - not so much for political reasons (I was still pretty young, and not very conscious at that point) but because it was f*cking awful.