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

NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

You should convert to Jonmanism. We encourage discrimination against morons.

Jonman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

You should convert to Jonmanism. We encourage discrimination against morons.

I won't join a religion that discriminates against me!

NathanialG wrote:
Jonman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

You should convert to Jonmanism. We encourage discrimination against morons.

I won't join a religion that discriminates against me!

Join Krazyfarianism then! We only discriminate against those named Jon!

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Jonman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

You should convert to Jonmanism. We encourage discrimination against morons.

I won't join a religion that discriminates against me!

Join Krazyfarianism then! We only discriminate against those named Jon!

Seems fair to me. I am kind of a moron.

Jonman wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

You should convert to Jonmanism. We encourage discrimination against morons.

Which would effectively be all non-Jonmanists, right? I mean, if they had any brains at all, they'd have followed the Jonmanlian path.

Well, no, it could be a religion of self-loathing -- one that hates morons, but allows only morons as members.

Kinda like the priests in Monty Python, wandering around, chanting, and whacking themselves in the head with a board.

Marriage equality in New Jersey is really a roller coaster ride at this point.

It seemed the NJ Legislature was very close to getting the votes necessary to get the bill out of both chambers and into the hands of Gov. Christie. But, up until a couple of weeks ago, Christie had been on the record of opposing marriage equality and threatening a veto. Then, a few days ago, he signaled that he wasn't so cut and dried on the veto. That sharpened the focus of SSM supporters in the Legislature and they were able to add a vote or two to the count.

Yesterday, Christie threw cold water on the bill by saying that he would probably veto, but what he really wants is the decision to be made by the people through a ballot measure. Being such a blowhard, I never thought Christie would cut and run, but, boy howdy, that is exactly what he did here. Apparently, he doesn't want to pick a side because he knows he loses the other side. A true statesperson would take a stand and live with the consequences. However, Christie thinks he can relieve the responsibility he has as governor by throwing it to the people for a vote.

Well, not so fast. In order to get the measure on the ballot, both chambers of the NJ Legislature would have to pass the referendum referral by a 3/5ths vote. Democratic leaders have said they will never get the votes from the Democratic caucus to send it to the people, and in a wonderful bit of smackdown to the Governor, the leader of NJ Equality reminded Christie that the last time NJ had a ballot measure granting to pulling civil rights from a group of people, NJ citizens voted down a proposal to allow women to vote (back in 1915). Ouch.

Everyone believes there will be enough votes to pass the bill and send it to Christie and he will then either veto it, sign it, or let it become law without his signature.

If he vetoes it, the issue is not over for the current legislative session, which lasts until January 2014. Assuming the bill passes and is vetoed within the next six months, that leaves a year and a half to get the additional votes to override the veto (the vetoed bill can be considered anytime until the new legislative session begins in 2014). In that time, Washington State will have gay marriage and even have had their referendum on the issue. Maryland may well have marriage equality. Word on the street is that Illinois may be in the bullpen on this issue.

If WA, MD and IL are jonesing for marriage equality, I am not sure you are going to have shrew politicians in Trenton willing to be on the wrong side of history and the moderate Republicans, like their counterparts in New York, may jump on the override bandwagon.

This is truly fascinating because Christie is trying desperately to be let off the hook.

Very interesting times in the Garden State.

He's looking to 2016 and already hearing Newt Gingrich's attack ads in that ominous voice saying "Chris Christie let homosexuals get married. Chris Christie is too liberal for America."

NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

Fortunately, it's more complicated than that.

NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

Wow that's pretty reprehensible. From my brief scan of it, it appears that the bill is specifically tailored to discriminate against gay marriage. So let's say I'm a Satanist who hates Christians and I own restaurant (the chef's special is baby over cous cous). If I decide to prohibit anyone who wears a cross (that isn't upside-down) from dining in my establishment, I would not be protected under this law. But if I decide that Satan hates gays too, I can kick two dudes holding hands out of the door and be cool under the law. Is that correct?

Nevin73 wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

If I start my own religion can I discriminate on anything I make up?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01...

Wow that's pretty reprehensible. From my brief scan of it, it appears that the bill is specifically tailored to discriminate against gay marriage. So let's say I'm a Satanist who hates Christians and I own restaurant (the chef's special is baby over cous cous). If I decide to prohibit anyone who wears a cross (that isn't upside-down) from dining in my establishment, I would not be protected under this law. But if I decide that Satan hates gays too, I can kick two dudes holding hands out of the door and be cool under the law. Is that correct?

Reading the quoted text of the bill, it sounds like anyone can discriminate against any marriage that is deemed "against their religion." So I'm betting under that absurdly racist bill, you could legally deny any married your services, as long as you prove that their marriage is against your own religion. Good luck holding that up against a white Christian couple though...

WipEout wrote:

Good luck holding that up against a white Christian couple though...

Unless it's two white Christian women.

Bloo Driver wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Good luck holding that up against a white Christian couple though...

Unless it's two white Christian women.

lol! Don't be silly-- Christians are never gay...

It's been quite the day today on the gay marriage front.

Let me pick up where I left off yesterday.

Gov. Christie seems to be trying as hard as he can to get the gay marriage issue off his plate and not be left holding the bag for either side. Today, Gov. Christie doubled down on his desire to have the people of New Jersey vote on gay marriage. Unfortunately for Christie, it all went terribly wrong when he said that white Southerns should have been given the chance to vote on the civil rights of blacks in the South in the 1950s and 60s. ""People would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South."

However, Bergen County Assemblyman Gordon Johnson, who is also black, said in a statement: "The governor apparently doesn't even understand that minorities likely would have been blocked from voting on a civil rights referendum in the South. Because they didn't have civil rights!"

OH SNAP!

Even better, however, was Newark Mayor Booker who said, "But dear God, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority. This is a fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for."

Note to Gov. Christie: when the SCOTUS made their landmark ruling in Loving v. Virginia, nearly 70% of the American public opposed interracial marriages. I am sure people would have loved to have had the right to vote on that civil rights issue if only to make sure interracial couples couldn't get married.

*****

A measure giving gays and lesbians the right to marry in Maine has received enough signatures to qualify for the November 2012 ballot. Equality Maine announced today that they submitted over 102,000 signatures to force the issue on the ballot. Only 57,000 were needed. Polling in Maine is also showing 54-42 polling in favor of marriage equality. This is outstanding news.

*****

Gasbag Newt Gingrich, bringing more red meat to the uber right wing of the GOP, declared today that wanting same-sex marriage is "pagan behavior."

GINGRICH: It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it’s a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.

I wonder what kind of behavior it is to go to the hospital to visit your wife who is recovering from cancer surgery for the sole purpose of telling her you are having and affair and divorcing her.

(Note to Newt: the earliest marriages known in history occurred in ancient Sumeria, which, I am pretty confident, was neither Jewish or Christian.)

*****

And, finally, congratulations to Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank who announced he will legally marry is long time partner Jim Ready.

Mazeltov, Congressman!

I thought the rule was that you had to wait one full month after the day we celebrate the winter solstice by adorning indoor evergreen trees before you complained about "pagan behavior"?

Yonder wrote:

I thought the rule was that you had to wait one full month after the day we celebrate the winter solstice by adorning indoor evergreen trees before you complained about "pagan behavior"?

For a man claiming to be a historian, he seems awfully vague on Paganism.

Isn't marriage in the bible often depicted as one man, multiple women? I can see why Newt would want to get behind that...

His entire viewpoint is Us vs Them, and so he can't be bothered to think about any distinctions in the Them part of it. He just spouts mean words and no one's supposed to think too much. I wish he was alone in this.

Newt's got the angle down on "You don't seem inclined to thinking, so I've done it for you."

IMAGE(http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2012/01/26/1327625398-stand_for_marriage.jpg)

Edwin wrote:

IMAGE(http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2012/01/26/1327625398-stand_for_marriage.jpg)

Honestly it's pretty nice of them to leave marriage to homosexuals and accept "marraige" as a substitute.

Wow. And that misspelling is consistent enough that it tells me they're doing it on purpose.

/slow clap

Good morning from Phoenix. High today is going to be around 75 F. Bright, sunny, with a few clouds.

Now, onto the update...

A gay couple in Illinois won another round in court against two Bed and Breafasts that refused to give them public accommodation for a civil union. Illinois law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodation. Both B&Bs are fighting tooth and nail to not have to provide services to gay and lesbian couples. If Illinois had gay marriage, this would be a slam dunk for the couple.

Russian airline Aeroflot is now the target of a boycott after forcing one of its pilots, an openly gay man, to marry his high school girlfriend in order to keep his job after he asked that a gay support group be formed within the airline. Because, of course, now that he has married a woman, he is heterosexual.

And, in what can only be described as delicious, an anti-gay everything (marriage, rights, etc.) state senator in Tennessee was thrown out of a bistro in Knoxville due to his anti gay screeds. Sen. Stacey Campfield was shown the door and told never to come back. The Bistro at the Bijou then posted this on their Facebook page: "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against."

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, in what can only be described as delicious, an anti-gay everything (marriage, rights, etc.) state senator in Tennessee was thrown out of a bistro in Knoxville due to his anti gay screeds. Sen. Stacey Campfield was shown the door and told never to come back. The Bistro at the Bijou then posted this on their Facebook page: "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against."

So awesome!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Russian airline Aeroflot is now the target of a boycott after forcing one of its pilots, an openly gay man, to marry his high school girlfriend in order to keep his job after he asked that a gay support group be formed within the airline. Because, of course, now that he has married a woman, he is heterosexual.

The kicker on this one, from the source I'd read (I'm at work, so I can't pull it up at the moment due to filters):

The girlfriend was already married and was (don't ask me how) forced to divorce her husband. So an honest-to-goodness marriage was taken apart in order for a sham one to be created.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, in what can only be described as delicious, an anti-gay everything (marriage, rights, etc.) state senator in Tennessee was thrown out of a bistro in Knoxville due to his anti gay screeds. Sen. Stacey Campfield was shown the door and told never to come back. The Bistro at the Bijou then posted this on their Facebook page: "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against."

I prefer doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, rather than doing unto others as they'd want done to you, myself.

Put another way: the fact that I wouldn't be happy if a gay-hostile establishment refused service to an openly-gay state senator doesn't mean I'm willing to cheer an homophobe being refused service by a gay-friendly establishment.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, in what can only be described as delicious, an anti-gay everything (marriage, rights, etc.) state senator in Tennessee was thrown out of a bistro in Knoxville due to his anti gay screeds. Sen. Stacey Campfield was shown the door and told never to come back. The Bistro at the Bijou then posted this on their Facebook page: "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against."

I prefer doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, rather than doing unto others as they'd want done to you, myself.

Put another way: the fact that I wouldn't be happy if a gay-hostile establishment refused service to an openly-gay state senator doesn't mean I'm willing to cheer an homophobe being refused service by a gay-friendly establishment.

I generally agree with that in life but I also think that you make your own bed. If you want to be openly homophobic then I'm ok with the fact that you have to deal with the consequences.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

And, in what can only be described as delicious, an anti-gay everything (marriage, rights, etc.) state senator in Tennessee was thrown out of a bistro in Knoxville due to his anti gay screeds. Sen. Stacey Campfield was shown the door and told never to come back. The Bistro at the Bijou then posted this on their Facebook page: "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against."

I prefer doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you, rather than doing unto others as they'd want done to you, myself.

Put another way: the fact that I wouldn't be happy if a gay-hostile establishment refused service to an openly-gay state senator doesn't mean I'm willing to cheer an homophobe being refused service by a gay-friendly establishment.

It's a bit different because it wasn't just a homophobe who was refused service, it was a political official who is actively trying to use his power to harass gay people who was refused service.

I wouldn't be okay with a gay-hostile establishment refusing service to Barney Frank, either.

The solution to discrimination in never more discrimination.

The "do unto others" mantra has been, thus far, the only negative reaction to Martha Boggs's decision not to serve Campfield, and it's ignorant at best, repugnant at worst. Boggs took a big risk in standing up for what she believes in and I admire her for it. We're talking about not serving food to a man dripping in hate speech rhetoric. I would compare it to refusing to serve a man in a kkk outfit, not to refusing to serve Barney Frank.