Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[Martinus]

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.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jewish mysticism for example, and my present concept of the divine has a lot in common with theirs. I just think that the "G-d" of the Old Testament/Orthodox Judaism is some lower grade manifestation thereof (for starters, if "G-d" is a "he", then it is a good clue he is not a real "G-d" because then he isn't also a "she" or "it"). But at least Jews understood much more about the divine than Christians, who got hopelessly dualistic and projected a lot of "nasty" aspects of Hashem on the Devil.

[Razgovory]

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.

You ever wonder why so many Jews become lawyers?

[Razgovory]

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.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jewish mysticism for example, and my present concept of the divine has a lot in common with theirs. I just think that the "G-d" of the Old Testament/Orthodox Judaism is some lower grade manifestation thereof (for starters, if "G-d" is a "he", then it is a good clue he is not a real "G-d" because then he isn't also a "she" or "it"). But at least Jews understood much more about the divine than Christians, who got hopelessly dualistic and projected a lot of "nasty" aspects of Hashem on the Devil.

Thank you Madonna.

[Martinus]

Stop calling me Madonna. Her "Qabalah" is bullshit.

[The Brain]

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.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Jewish mysticism for example, and my present concept of the divine has a lot in common with theirs.

And the fabulous.

[The Brain]

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 

What's wrong with cannibalism?

[Malthus]

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

Uh, you do realize that is based on a sample size of exactly 2 anonymous reports, and may not actually represent wages that everyone with that title earns, right?  At least, I hope you aren't planning on applying, secure in the knowledge that is what you would earn.

[Admiral Yi]

For how many hours.  The same link suggests its comes to 26K a year.  And assistant profs make 80.

[Martinus]

$57 per hour is very low for someone who works the way a professor does. It's not a work on a cash register or in a factory - you have to prepare to a lecture, you have to mark exams etc - none of which is paid. Tim, I knew you were an idiot but here you really crossed the line into complete moronism.

[Valmy]

If it is $57.00 an hour per classroom hour and office hours then that is pretty meager.

[Malthus]

To be honest, I really have no idea what they actually earn - we don't discuss such matters. I just got the impression it wasn't very much, but enough to live on if one was very frugal. Also, although they themselves don't talk about it, their friends in the same boat seem to spend much of the brief time I was with them complaining about their massive academic debts, the meagreness of their pay for long hours, and the lack of job security ... their comparative poverty, if you will (though no doubt it is a life of abundance compared to some*).

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/05/the-cost-of-an-adjunct/394091/

http://www.businessinsider.com/reality-of-being-an-adjunct-professor-2015-5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/adjunct-faculty_n_4255139.html

The articles I've read seem to suggest using the term "poor academics" is not necessarily totally misplaced. But then, I've been told I'm out of touch on such matters. 

*Necessary CC disclaimer

[Valmy]

The point here is that Malthus is a man of the people who, like that great rentier Jean Juarez, lives on bread and water and good cheer. And a burning identification with the proletariat.

[Martinus]

I can understand Malthus's frustration, to be honest. Languish in general, and some posters in particular (CC, Yi and grumbler all come to mind) have this tendency to really bog you down in minutiae by deliberately (or perhaps it is some form of psychosis or mental deficiency) misinterpreting your post - and if you choose to ignore them in exasperation, they smugly and abrasively announce their "victory".

[Admiral Yi]

 

[garbon]

I can understand Malthus's frustration, to be honest. Languish in general, and some posters in particular (CC, Yi and grumbler all come to mind) have this tendency to really bog you down in minutiae by deliberately (or perhaps it is some form of psychosis or mental deficiency) misinterpreting your post - and if you choose to ignore them in exasperation, they smugly and abrasively announce their "victory".

I mean, I suppose he could have just been like 'yeah whatever guys, I know you love to attack me over poverty claims' and then end scene.