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

The Pope doesn't want to judge (supposedly), but the rest of his church still doesn't seem to care what he has to say.

I can't help but be amused that the last time I spoke to my dad a couple days ago, he was all like, "Hey did you see what the pope said on the plane?" When I replied, yes, but they still have a long way to go, he said, "Well, not too far." Yes, dad, quite a ways.

NSMike wrote:

The Pope doesn't want to judge (supposedly), but the rest of his church still doesn't seem to care what he has to say.

I can't help but be amused that the last time I spoke to my dad a couple days ago, he was all like, "Hey did you see what the pope said on the plane?" When I replied, yes, but they still have a long way to go, he said, "Well, not too far." Yes, dad, quite a ways.

Sigh. I wonder if the Onion knew exactly how accurate their article would actually become.

To be fair, many Catholics have been largely ignoring what the Pope (whomever he was) has been saying for decades on things like stewardship, peace, sex, and birth control, yet still insist they're Catholic. So this is pretty well par for the course.

Bloo Driver wrote:

To be fair, many Catholics have been largely ignoring what the Pope (whomever he was) has been saying for decades on things like stewardship, peace, sex, and birth control, yet still insist they're Catholic. So this is pretty well par for the course.

So... they... ignore Papal Infallibility and the authority of the Pope... wasn't that kind of the whole point of that little question brought up by the Protestants?

I'm not saying it makes sense. Just that it's consistent.

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

To be fair, many Catholics have been largely ignoring what the Pope (whomever he was) has been saying for decades on things like stewardship, peace, sex, and birth control, yet still insist they're Catholic. So this is pretty well par for the course.

So... they... ignore Papal Infallibility and the authority of the Pope... wasn't that kind of the whole point of that little question brought up by the Protestants?

Wikipedia[/url]]The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is - apart from canonizations of saints - extremely rare.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

To be fair, many Catholics have been largely ignoring what the Pope (whomever he was) has been saying for decades on things like stewardship, peace, sex, and birth control, yet still insist they're Catholic. So this is pretty well par for the course.

So... they... ignore Papal Infallibility and the authority of the Pope... wasn't that kind of the whole point of that little question brought up by the Protestants?

Wikipedia[/url]]The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is - apart from canonizations of saints - extremely rare.

So it's like how I voted for Obama, but don't agree with everything he says?

That seems like a weird opinion to have towards the Earthly leader of your religion.

That also makes me sad, because it means JPII talking about how the theory of evolution should be treated as scientific fact basically means nothing for a whole bunch of unscientific catholics. Bleh.

We accept that the Pope and priests are human - even sinful humans, just like everybody else. Only God is good, as Christ says. I have would have no compunctions telling JP2 if he were still alive that he was talking out of his ass if he asks me to reclassify a scientific theory as a scientific fact. He's a theologian, not a scientist. Stick to theology, man.

cue 3 page disagreement on the word "theory" in 3....2.....

Seth wrote:

cue 3 page disagreement on the word "theory" in 3....2.....

Let's don't and say we did. It'll be our little secret.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Seth wrote:

cue 3 page disagreement on the word "theory" in 3....2.....

Let's don't and say we did. It'll be our little secret.

Yeah, ditto what she said.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Seth wrote:

cue 3 page disagreement on the word "theory" in 3....2.....

Let's don't and say we did. It'll be our little secret.

I'm actually sorry I even uttered JPII in this thread. Guy was a tool on the subject of this thread.

This thread makes me smile seeing the little victories and battles occurring regarding our rights in the greater US and world. Thanks to everyone for posting them so I can see our rights marching on.

Living in Kansas it feels like a world so far removed from daily life. Sadly; I don't foresee things changing here any time soon and federal rights like Social Security, Visa rights, or taxes are based on the state you live. So, on the day of the ruling in the Supreme Court nothing changed for me and all the others living in the other 37 states that outlaw same-sex marriage.

Someday we'll all have equal rights in this nation. I'd feel lucky if it changed in the next decade or two in the truly entrenched conservative areas of our nation like my home state. I refuse to move from here because I love Kansas and the people that live here. I have faith that they do respect me as a person and it's a vocal minority that stands against our rights. I just hope things change sooner than I expect because it's painful to see what my partner and I could have if we lived somewhere else.

I went online and became an ordained minister a little over a month ago and will be officiating my first wedding on 31 August for one of my wife's coworkers and friend of both of us. It's also a gay wedding, so I figured that I'd post in here. Go Maryland!

Russia takes a step backwards with laws against "homsexual propaganda"

This is fairly close to my hometown. I am shocked. But in a happy way.

Blondish83 wrote:

This thread makes me smile seeing the little victories and battles occurring regarding our rights in the greater US and world. Thanks to everyone for posting them so I can see our rights marching on.

Living in Kansas it feels like a world so far removed from daily life. Sadly; I don't foresee things changing here any time soon and federal rights like Social Security, Visa rights, or taxes are based on the state you live. So, on the day of the ruling in the Supreme Court nothing changed for me and all the others living in the other 37 states that outlaw same-sex marriage.

Someday we'll all have equal rights in this nation. I'd feel lucky if it changed in the next decade or two in the truly entrenched conservative areas of our nation like my home state. I refuse to move from here because I love Kansas and the people that live here. I have faith that they do respect me as a person and it's a vocal minority that stands against our rights. I just hope things change sooner than I expect because it's painful to see what my partner and I could have if we lived somewhere else.

Actually I do believe that federal rights, such as Social Security apply, regardless of the state laws. It is my belief that getting married in another state that has gay marriage, makes it official on a federal level, regardless of whether or not your home state recognizes the marriage. Of course I'd also suggest talking to a lawyer to get an "official" answer,

Stephen Fry posted a really good open letter about the whole Russian Olympics situation.

I am sorry for not updating this thread more, but, as you know, I have been a bit preoccupied.

The news that has been a focus in the past two days is how the Social Security Administration is going to treat gay couples, and it looks like they will buck the trend of the other agencies and base benefits on the state of residence instead of state of where the marriage occurred. This is not good news. The statute in question that is governing this decision is 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i) which states:

An applicant is the wife, husband, widow, or widower of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this title if the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an application, or, if such insured individual is dead, the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of death, or, if such insured individual is or was not so domiciled in any State, the courts of the District of Columbia, would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married at the time such applicant files such application or, if such insured individual is dead, at the time he died.

The key word here is "domiciled." This is troubling on many levels. It leaves the obligation for the change to Congress and the House of Representatives is so hostile to gay people right now the chances of getting a fix on this statute to change domiciled to "where married" is pretty much nil unless the GOP loses control of the House. My guess is that this will end up back in the courts as an equal protection case.

Gee, we only have to wait another three years.

----------------

Poor NOM. They just can't cut a break.

The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board has voted to investigate whether a national group that opposes same-sex marriage violated state law during the 2012 campaign to unseat an Iowa Supreme Court justice.

Fred Karger, a California Republican who is a gay rights activist, filed a complaint about the National Organization for Marriage.

“They’re very duplicitous. They’re bullies,” Karger told reporters. “They’ll say and do anything to raise money.”

Karger found a fundraising letter in which the National Organization of Marriage asked for donations for its “No Wiggins” campaign to unseat Justice David Wiggins. State law requires the names of donors to be disclosed if they’re giving money for the purpose of defeating the justice, something the National organization for Marriage did not do in this case.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

Isn't Orson Scott Card on the NOM board? I'm surprised that he'd support a "No Wiggins" campaign.

muttonchop wrote:

Isn't Orson Scott Card on the NOM board? I'm surprised that he'd support a "No Wiggins" campaign.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that thought.

And, that is that.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stop same-sex weddings in the most populous U.S. state, dealing a blow to gay marriage opponents who are trying to regroup after losing at the nation’s high court earlier this year.

California voters passed a gay marriage ban in 2008, known as Proposition 8, but a San Francisco federal judge struck down the initiative as unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that supporters of the ban did not have the legal right to appeal.

In the aftermath of that highly anticipated opinion, Prop 8 supporters asked the California Supreme Court to rule that the original federal order did not apply across the state, but rather only to the two couples involved in the case.

But the California Supreme Court denied that request in a one-sentence order on Wednesday, which did not provide any legal analysis.

Of course, the anti-gay marriage types are hitting the fainting couches with reckless abandon:

Andy Pugno, an attorney for pro-Prop 8 group ProtectMarriage.com, said the court’s ruling “leaves grave doubts about the future of the initiative process in our state.”

Um... no it doesn't.

It solidifies the idea that in this republic, you have majority rule but minority rights.

Prop. 8 is dead.

Good riddance.

Anti-Gay group Straight Pride UK is abusing the DMCA takedown process to censor work by a journalist. No surprise there—the DMCA is twisted for all kinds of dumb purposes. The inexplicable part? The hate group filed a takedown on... its own press release. How dare you say that we said the words that we wrote in a press release.

Read more...

A little bit of positive news:
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/t...

Turkey to become second majority Muslim nation to protect sexual minorities from discrimination

Turkey’s Constitutional Consensus Committee agreed Monday that sexual orientation be added to a section of a draft new constitution – which if passed would make it only the second majority Muslim country to protect sexual minorities

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Prop. 8 is dead.

Good riddance.

So... /thread?

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Prop. 8 is dead.

Good riddance.

So... /thread?

A. Not while a lot of other states have the same thing going.

B. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I love this thread, it's my favorite thread since the Presidential Election thread shut down.

Demosthenes wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Prop. 8 is dead.

Good riddance.

So... /thread?

A. Not while a lot of other states have the same thing going.

B. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I love this thread, it's my favorite thread since the Presidential Election thread shut down. :(

Pretty sure Clock was kidding, as she's well aware of the (justified and worthwhile) scope creep that's turned this into the unofficial same sex rights catch-all thread