Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[Malthus]

So, apparently, a group of Orthodox Jews paid Mexican workers to dress up as Orthodox Jews and protest the NYC Pride on Saturday. Presumably they didn't want to do it themselves because of Sabbath.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/29/jewish-group-hire-mexican-labourers-to-protest-nyc-pride/

And how not to love religious people. 

OK, that's awesome. 

[Valmy]

So, apparently, a group of Orthodox Jews paid Mexican workers to dress up as Orthodox Jews and protest the NYC Pride on Saturday. Presumably they didn't want to do it themselves because of Sabbath.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/29/jewish-group-hire-mexican-labourers-to-protest-nyc-pride/

And how not to love religious people. 

Orthodox Jews do this sort of thing for Sabbath all the time. The law is generous with practical work arounds. It is not their fault gay people are too antisemitic to hold it on another day

[DGuller]

Poor is poor, it's not a comparative concept.  No matter how rich you are, there is always someone a whole order of magnitude richer, unless you're listed by Forbes.

Of course poor can be used in conversation as a comparative concept. 

Hopefully not in conversations with real poor people.

[DGuller]

Orthodox Jews do this sort of thing for Sabbath all the time. The law is generous with practical work arounds. It is not their fault gay people are too antisemitic to hold it on another day

Yeah, everyone knows G-d is a putz who can't see through elaborate schemes.

[Martinus]

Orthodox Jews do this sort of thing for Sabbath all the time. The law is generous with practical work arounds. It is not their fault gay people are too antisemitic to hold it on another day

Yeah, everyone knows G-d is a putz who can't see through elaborate schemes.

I think it's more along the lines that G-d is an asshole and a rules lawyer, so they don't care if he sees through that - but he can't do shit about it.

[Valmy]

Orthodox Jews do this sort of thing for Sabbath all the time. The law is generous with practical work arounds. It is not their fault gay people are too antisemitic to hold it on another day

Yeah, everyone knows G-d is a putz who can't see through elaborate schemes.

He is perfect and wrote the laws so any loopholes are features and not bugs

During Passover I was once asked to "buy" a bunch of stuff this guy was forbidden to have in his house (I think they are forbidden to have leaven or something) and then "sold" it back to him once Passover was done. Hashem was impressed I am sure.

[Valmy]

I think it's more along the lines that G-d is an asshole and a rules lawyer, so they don't care if he sees through that - but he can't do shit about it.

I would think it would be your kind of religion if you weren't gay.

[Eddie Teach]

Kind of ironic that Malthus is complaining about a meme after he chased Seedy away with all those chained up hooker accusations. 

[DGuller]

Kind of ironic that Malthus is complaining about a meme after he chased Seedy away with all those chained up hooker accusations. 

Well, Seedy himself banned bmolsson, so he's not the one to complain.

[Berkut]

For the record, I thought his comment was intended to say that a couple prof were relatively poor compared to his own standard of living and the standard of living they *could* be enjoying if they so chose - it never even crossed my mind to think they were adjunct. I don't think anyone really makes that kind of assumption when someone talks about professors at a university unless it is specified.

[LaCroix]

you misunderstood my post. i'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality. i was looking more at the legal aspect of the decision. i agree with the majority in this case, but i see why the dissenters dissented. it depends on how the justices view the law and their role. the four dissenters knew they lost. they weren't complaining about gay marriage being legal because they're republicans and republicans hate gay marriage. (as an aside, the argument that justices decide law solely due to their political affiliation is immature and incorrect. some law professors even argue this, and it's just sad.). the dissenters dissented because legalizing gay marriage through judicial activism went against their view of the law. as a judge, you don't decide cases to get positive outcomes for any party. you decide cases based on the law and nothing but the law.

But that's my point - I can clearly see how you can construct a legal principle that makes it unconstitutional to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, while allowing discrimination of pedophiles. That you say you think the same principle that was used to declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional could be used to also allow pedophilia in fact proves you compare the two. And as I said before, I'd rather have decisions like this made through "judicial activism" than through "democratic process" - because human rights cannot be subject to the whims of the demos.

Edit: Now, I can see this principle being used to legalise polygamy/polyandry or sibling incest (the legalisation of both I have supported for a very long time), but not pedophilia.

i'm not talking about pedophilia and gay marriage in the way you're talking about. i used pedophilia simply because everyone hates pedophilia. i may as well have said cannibalism. the dissenters felt legalizing gay marriage was improper exercise of the supreme court's role. that's a correct view based on how one interprets the law. the majority was also correct based on a different interpretation of the law. neither side was wrong, even though one side had a more positive outcome than the other side.

(edit) i see yi addressed this a few posts later 

[jimmy olsen]

If you wish.  I am dying to know how you parse the sentence "They live as poor academics - they are both profs at the university of Iowa."  as incapable of being reasonably interpreted as meaning academics teaching at the university of Iowa are poor.

As everyone knows, there are generally two types of profs: one, tenure-track; the other, on contract ... the former is well-paid and the latter, famously, is not. The latter group is growing in numbers at the expense of the former group, in North America. None of which, I am sure, is any mystery to you. 

Which is more reasonable - to assume that I was talking about the former or the latter when talking about "poor academics"?

University of Iowa adjunct professors make $57 an hour! Oh the humanity!

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/University-of-Iowa-Adjunct-Professor-Iowa-City-Hourly-Pay-EJI_IE3019.0,18_KO19,36_IL.37,46_IM409.htm

[LaCroix]

when i read malthus's comment, a niggling thought suggested he was talking about adjuncts. but, the landslide had already occurred by then, and it definitely influenced the way i interpreted the post. had the vicious and cruel meme attack never happened, or the meme never existed, then we may have all assumed malthus meant something that wasn't absurd.

[Caliga]

niggling

[LaCroix]