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

I saw that getting some traction on Twitter. Awesome

Chris Kluwe is always awesome. Furthermore, to be site on-topic, he's a huge gamer, and regularly tweets about what he's playing. Hilarious guy all around.

That was an awesome article, thanks for sharing!

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/12/V_Kdv46xJUW7fmNa3rdM-g2.jpg)

o.O Poe's law strikes again.

KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/12/V_Kdv46xJUW7fmNa3rdM-g2.jpg)

Oh my, the crazy train is really jumping the tracks with that one. How could Trex have practice satanism with his tiny arms?

This did me think of a gay dinosaur joke: Are you a Triceratop or a Tricerabottom

wizard_in_motley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/12/V_Kdv46xJUW7fmNa3rdM-g2.jpg)

Oh my, the crazy train is really jumping the tracks with that one. How could Trex have practice satanism with his tiny arms?

This did me think of a gay dinosaur joke: Are you a Triceratop or a Tricerabottom :)

Awesome...so is that dinosaur porn? Man, if only there had been a car in that picture. Then GWJ could have sued for copywrite infringement.

I laughed doubly hard because this just recently made the news:

Virgin births discovered in wild snakes

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

Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson on the Church and marriage.

You are not alone in wondering if we aren’t tampering with a time-honored, hallowed tradition and practice. It feels a little like defying the gods! But I know it’s not unusual for people to think that what they have experienced in their own lives is the way it has always been. The facts about the history and evolution of marriage show that that is not the case.

Some people would have you believe that marriage began with Adam and Eve. But in the account in Genesis where Adam and Eve become one flesh (presumably through their mutual commitment and sexual intimacy), there is no mention of an “institution” of marriage nor any liturgy, vows, promises or other ritual used to solemnize their relationship. This prehistorical account can only serve as a backdrop to the meaning (not the “institution”) of marriage that developed over time.

The fact of the matter is, marriage has not been consistent or unchanging over time. Indeed, even in biblical times, we see a constant evolution in the practice of marriage. One man and one woman, united in marriage for life, mutually exclusive and “faithful” sexually, and joined because of their love for each other, is a relatively modern notion of marriage. Such was not the case in ancient times.

Australian Senate votes down gay marriage.

Could I get some background from our Aussie friends here? Is the Senate dominated by the conservative party, or is it more like the English House of Lords with a lot of old white unelected men?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/us/chi...

Chick-fil-A, in a statement Thursday, affirmed the workplace protections. Friday, however, company President Dan Cathy denied the company has ceased making donations to groups that oppose gay marriage and said Chick-fil-A "made no such concessions."

"There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago," Cathy said in a statement to Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential candidate who now runs a conservative website. "That is incorrect."

In other words, nothing's changed.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/us/chi...

Chick-fil-A, in a statement Thursday, affirmed the workplace protections. Friday, however, company President Dan Cathy denied the company has ceased making donations to groups that oppose gay marriage and said Chick-fil-A "made no such concessions."

"There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago," Cathy said in a statement to Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential candidate who now runs a conservative website. "That is incorrect."

In other words, nothing's changed.

It sounds like they're trying to actively say different things to different groups.

To socially liberal (or lost) customers, hey we don't give them money anymore (also we hold fundraisers for them so kind of the same and doesn't address your concerns).

To socially conservative, hey, we're still getting money to these groups, nothingh as changed, though we don't do it directly anymore so that has changed.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/21/RBxh3iFiZkajy0e--hId7Q2.jpg)

Personally, I would have left her over that dress, yeesh. It looks like my shower curtain.

KingGorilla wrote:

Personally, I would have left her over that dress, yeesh. It looks like my shower curtain.

It's like a Crate & Barrel catalog vomited on her.

KingGorilla wrote:

Personally, I would have left her over that dress, yeesh. It looks like my shower curtain.

You need a new shower curtain.

Hypatian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Personally, I would have left her over that dress, yeesh. It looks like my shower curtain.

You need a new shower curtain.

IMAGE(http://www.bazingawebdesign.com/sites/default/files/bazinga_logo.png)

Two updates.

First, the petition by the pro-Prop. 8 attorneys for the SCOTUS to grant certiorari has been distributed to the Court, but it is anyone's guess what will happen. They can 1) deny certiorari, 2) grant cetiorari, or 3) delay action on the writ for some time.

If they deny certiorari, then the stays striking down Prop. 8 will end and gay marriage will be legal again in California.

Second update concerns New York State.

After New York passed marriage equality last year, the National Organization for Marriage pledged large gobs of cash to challengers to Republican members of the New York State Senate that voted in favor of marriage equality. Of the three races that NOM heavily funded, only one Senator was defeated (by 113 votes). The other two won their primaries (one by a squeaker, the other a clear win).

In all, a bad day for NOM, and defeating those three candidates in total would have been meaningless anyway as marriage equality is not going to be repealed since there will never be enough votes in the New York Assembly to pass a repeal bill.

dejanzie wrote:

Australian Senate votes down gay marriage.

Could I get some background from our Aussie friends here? Is the Senate dominated by the conservative party, or is it more like the English House of Lords with a lot of old white unelected men?

Couple of issues, main one being that the incumbent left-wing party allowed a conscience vote (i.e. each senator can vote independently which split things a bit) while the right wing opposition enforced voting along the party line. They're kind of stuck in that position for now since opposing gay marriage was one of their election promises and about 80% of their strategy at this point is hammering the left-wing party for not keeping theirs. It also doesn't help that the nominally left-wing party is still fairly socially conservative - the PM is on record as opposing gay marriage - and the genuinely socially left-wing party is fairly small and has a number of organisational issues (there was some recent infighting about whether they should be pushing for polyamorous marriages too, for example).

It'll be interesting to see how things shape up after the next election. I suspect the right-wing party will crush the left-wing one since that's what's been happening at the state levels, but if they don't make the gay marriage thing a specific issue they might allow conscience voting, which could change the complexion of things considerably. The old (and quite possibly) future leader of the party is actually pro-gay marriage and kicked up a stink about the party voting; and even the current leader has a gay sister, so might do things differently once he's freed from the constraints of previous promises.

Thanks! Here's hoping Australia will join civilization soon

dejanzie wrote:

Thanks! Here's hoping Australia will join civilization soon ;-)

Insert joke about stereotypes regarding gay men and spiders/snakes.

California governor OKs ban on gay conversion therapy, calling it 'quackery'

Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."

The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.

"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."

I'd say this is a great thing.

Nevin73 wrote:

California governor OKs ban on gay conversion therapy, calling it 'quackery'

Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."

The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.

"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."

I'd say this is a great thing.

Yah, my brother-in-law forwarded us this when it passed. Definitely a step in the right direction.

It's terrible how the state of California is taking away parents' right to demonize their children and drive them further into the kinds of depression that leads to shockingly high suicide rates amongst LGBTQ teens. NANNY STATE!

Tanglebones wrote:

This is what I think of every time I hear Jerry Brown.

Yeah, that suit isn't going to fly. California carefully tailored the bill to apply only to professionals licensed by the state; as part of that licensure, they can impose restrictions. One of those restrictions is that you can't try to de-gayify kids under 18.

Once they're 18, they can choose to have it done, and non-professionals can still do it. But if you're a licensed health professional in California, you may not use that license to engage in faith-based, harmful practices.