The Court holds (5-4 of course) that: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction in the Prop 8 case.
Congratulations, gays :yeah:
So the leaderboard so far this week: Fags 1, Negroes 0. Yay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
So the leaderboard so far this week: Fags 1, Negroes 0. Yay.
MAH WHITE GUILT
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 09:11:23 AM
The Court holds (5-4 of course) that: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction in the Prop 8 case.
Who voted which way?
It really makes you feel good about the robustness of this country's democratic system when one person's success or failure at dying at the right moment decides some pretty fundamental questions.
Big week for conventional wisdom of SCOTUS watchers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Who voted which way?
Majority: Kennedy, the liberals. Dissent: the conservatives (who thought that the Court lacked jurisdiction, or, if it had jurisdiction, was overreaching).
Interestingly, the decision to dismiss the Prop 8 case for lack of standing was also 5-4, but with a strange line-up. Majority is Roberts with Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Dissent is Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor. That's the first time I have ever seen Kagan and Sotomayor on opposite sides of an opinion.
Declining to hear Prop 8 means the California SC decision to overturn stands, right? Or do I have it backwards?
You know, I think that Obama is really smart, but damn, does he have some shitty litigators working for him. According to Scalia's dissent, the government's appeal brief took a non-adversarial position? What idiocy. That's the definition of no case or controversy.
They should have filed a pro-forma defense of DOMA, to deprive Scalia of that basis for dissent.
:swiss:
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2013, 09:30:36 AM
You know, I think that Obama is really smart, but damn, does he have some shitty litigators working for him. According to Scalia's dissent, the government's appeal brief took a non-adversarial position? What idiocy. That's the definition of no case or controversy.
They should have filed a pro-forma defense of DOMA, to deprive Scalia of that basis for dissent.
Please explain what this means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:29:57 AM
Declining to hear Prop 8 means the California SC decision to overturn stands, right? Or do I have it backwards?
The district court's decision enjoining the enforcement of Prop 8 stands, I believe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:36:12 AM
Please explain what this means.
Standing requires a "case and controversy" and that a ruling would remedy the injury suffered by a party in the case. The Court isn't allowed to issue advisory opinions if it doesn't have a case and controversy before it. In the DOMA case, I believe the initial district court ruling went against the Feds (i.e. saying DOMA was unconstitutional). Obama then decided not to try and defend the law, so when the case went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, both the government and the law's challenger were asking that the judgment be affirmed. Same thing happened at the Supreme Court level.
Scalia says: "The majority can cite no case in which this Court entertained an appeal in which both parties urged us to affirm the judgment below. And that is because the existence of a controversy is not a "prudential" requirement that we have invented, but an essential element of an Article III case or controversy. The majority's notion that a case between friendly parties can be entertained so long as "adversarial presentation of the issues is assured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor" the other side of the issue, effects a breathtaking revolution in our Article III jurisprudence."
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 09:37:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:29:57 AM
Declining to hear Prop 8 means the California SC decision to overturn stands, right? Or do I have it backwards?
The district court's decision enjoining the enforcement of Prop 8 stands, I believe.
This is right.
The Prop 8 one is a bullshit decision, because not letting proponents of a referendum defend that referendum in court means that the defense is at the mercy of the California government / AG...severely undercutting the point of a popular referendum.
I would argue two things in opposition to that point, ulmont. Firstly, the proper remedy would probably be a Constitutional Amendment to the California State Constitution legally requiring the executive branch to defend in court any legal challenges to voter referendum. In that sense the controversy would never arise, and the SCOTUS would not have to break longstanding rules on standing.
Kleves, I thought that in the DOMA case since the Obama DOJ declined to defend DOMA or contest the ruling the House hired a former Solicitor General to defend the case on behalf of the House of Representatives, and unlike private citizens in the Prop 8 case the House did have valid standing to defend a law the White House declined to defend. The guy they hired was one of Bush's SGs and to my knowledge provided a vigorous defense of DOMA in his oral arguments, but maybe I'm incorrect. There's a WSJ article that outlines the arguments he made as to why DOMA was valid Federal law, so it doesn't sound as if he was working for it to be struck down.
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2013, 09:30:36 AM
You know, I think that Obama is really smart, but damn, does he have some shitty litigators working for him. According to Scalia's dissent, the government's appeal brief took a non-adversarial position?
I think its safe to assume that position was driven by political considerations and not by litigation tactics.
Thanks Kleves.
What I don't get though, is if no one was challenging the district court's decision, why did it make it first to the circuit court then to the Supreme court? Why didn't the district court decision just stand?
BTW, if you're going to read some portion of a Supreme Court decision for entertainment value, I would recommend Scalia's dissents. He is often extremely scathing, and he is IMO probably the best (or most readable) writer on the Court. Here's a portion of his dissent today:
QuoteBy formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority armswell every challenger to a state law restricting marriage toits traditional definition. Henceforth those challengerswill lead with this Court's declaration that there is "no legitimate purpose" served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has "the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure" the "personhood and dignity"of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority'slimiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is whythe language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society's debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy "help" only to a member ofthis institution.
As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Courtpawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA's passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. Victories in one place for some, see North Carolina Const., Amdt. 1 (providing that "[m]arriage between one man and one woman is theonly domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognizedin this State") (approved by a popular vote, 61% to 39% on May 8, 2012),6 are offset by victories in other places for others, see Maryland Question 6 (establishing "that Maryland's civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples toobtain a civil marriage license") (approved by a popular vote, 52% to 48%, on November 6, 2012).7 Even in a single State, the question has come out differently on different occasions. Compare Maine Question 1 (permitting "theState of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples") (approved by a popular vote, 53% to 47%, onNovember 6, 2012)8 with Maine Question 1 (rejecting "the new law that lets same-sex couples marry") (approved by apopular vote, 53% to 47%, on November 3, 2009).
In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's politicalopponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle likethis one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriagecan still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution.We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice intoday's decision, and some will despair at it; that is thenature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winnersof an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
Well, it's a shame. Still, at least we can take comfort knowing that the next civilization to arise out of our ruins will learn from our mistakes and not allow an overdose of tolerance to poison their society.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
Kleves, I thought that in the DOMA case since the Obama DOJ declined to defend DOMA or contest the ruling the House hired a former Solicitor General to defend the case on behalf of the House of Representatives, and unlike private citizens in the Prop 8 case the House did have valid standing to defend a law the White House declined to defend.
That's more-or-less what the Court ruled today. I don't think it was a sure thing that the Court would allow
amici curiae (i.e. outside groups) to carry the adversarial burden when the parties themselves were in agreement about that they would like to see happen.
Quote from: ulmont on June 26, 2013, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 09:37:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:29:57 AM
Declining to hear Prop 8 means the California SC decision to overturn stands, right? Or do I have it backwards?
The district court's decision enjoining the enforcement of Prop 8 stands, I believe.
This is right.
The Prop 8 one is a bullshit decision, because not letting proponents of a referendum defend that referendum in court means that the defense is at the mercy of the California government / AG...severely undercutting the point of a popular referendum.
That said, thank god. We have some stupid ass referendums.
Now that it is legal in California that makes 13 States + DC where gay marriage is legal. But I've not heard anyone explain how this effects the other 7 jurisdictions where States perform gay civil unions but not gay marriages. Does this mean persons in such civil unions are entitled to Federal marriage benefits? Or not? Since they are not technically married under State law but in a "civil union"?
BTW states where it is legal: CA, CT, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, WA + DC
States with Civil Unions: CO, HI, IL, NJ, NV, OR, WI
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 10:10:11 AM
Now that it is legal in California that makes 13 States + DC where gay marriage is legal. But I've not heard anyone explain how this effects the other 7 jurisdictions where States perform gay civil unions but not gay marriages. Does this mean persons in such civil unions are entitled to Federal marriage benefits? Or not? Since they are not technically married under State law but in a "civil union"?
isn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.
Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 10:02:36 AM
That said, thank god. We have some stupid ass referendums.
California's propositions are preposterous most of the time.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
I would argue two things in opposition to that point, ulmont. Firstly, the proper remedy would probably be a Constitutional Amendment to the California State Constitution legally requiring the executive branch to defend in court any legal challenges to voter referendum.
I suspect you would not get the same quality of representation if people are arguing / advancing positions they do not believe in, but potentially allowing the supporters to be explicit agents of the state might work.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
In that sense the controversy would never arise, and the SCOTUS would not have to break longstanding rules on standing.
There are no longstanding rules on defending referenda that the state has refused to support; it doesn't come up that often. The Supreme Court's decision was solely to duck deciding the case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 09:54:35 AM
Thanks Kleves.
What I don't get though, is if no one was challenging the district court's decision, why did it make it first to the circuit court then to the Supreme court? Why didn't the district court decision just stand?
Yi, the referendum's supporters attempted to appeal in California. The 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court of California "Is that cool?" And the Supreme Court of California said "Yeah, that's cool," after which the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's opinion and the referendum's supporters appealed to the Supreme Court.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 10:10:11 AM
Now that it is legal in California that makes 13 States + DC where gay marriage is legal. But I've not heard anyone explain how this effects the other 7 jurisdictions where States perform gay civil unions but not gay marriages. Does this mean persons in such civil unions are entitled to Federal marriage benefits? Or not? Since they are not technically married under State law but in a "civil union"?
There are a lot of logistical issues to sort out now with respect to Federal marriage benefits, starting with but not limited to joint taxation where income is from a mix of gay marriage, gay civil union, and no gay marriage states...
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2013, 10:18:04 AMisn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.
Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.
There are a few things left unclarified to me. If you live in North Dakota and fly to Maryland to get married, but continue to reside in North Dakota then the State doesn't recognize your marriage. But are you entitled to Federal benefits when you have a valid marriage but not recognized by your resident State? I haven't read the whole decision, but none of the articles I've read about it clarify this point.
Plus, the seven civil union states ostensibly have lots of people united under that legal mechanism, they will need some guidance on whether or not they are entitled to Federal benefits under their current legal status or if they are required to get married somewhere.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2013, 10:18:04 AM
Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.
I think states still can as section 2 wasn't struck down.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2013, 10:18:04 AM
isn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.
Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.
I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere. I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.
ulmont: I was asking about the the DOMA decision. If no one opposed the lower court decision, why did it go up?
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 10:02:32 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
Kleves, I thought that in the DOMA case since the Obama DOJ declined to defend DOMA or contest the ruling the House hired a former Solicitor General to defend the case on behalf of the House of Representatives, and unlike private citizens in the Prop 8 case the House did have valid standing to defend a law the White House declined to defend.
That's more-or-less what the Court ruled today. I don't think it was a sure thing that the Court would allow amici curiae (i.e. outside groups) to carry the adversarial burden when the parties themselves were in agreement about that they would like to see happen.
It is a bit dicey because the injury that creates the controversy involves a taxpayer vs. the fisc and the House as an institution has no clear interest in that controversy. I can see the argument for no standing.
Scalia's bloated rhetoric is a bit much to take on this though. Yes he writes well but he seems to have lost the thread here in his eagerness to stike a pose of dignified restraint. His ringing declaration that "we have no power under theConstitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation" sit uncomfortably not only with his dissent in last years ACA case counseling "careful scrutiny" of Congressional invocations of the commerce power but his rather bizarre warning later in Windsor dissent itself of "the power of the most dangerous branch: the '"legislative department," which by its nature "draws all power into its impetuous vortex."" His notion that the majority's fine distinction between the jurisdictional requirements of Art III standing and prudential standing rules somehow represents a massive power grab by an imperious self-aggrandizing court is absurd; it's like someone trying to write a court opinion in the style of a Martinus languish rant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 10:25:02 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2013, 10:18:04 AM
isn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.
Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.
I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere. I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.
QuoteSection 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Another thing: Scalia's strict interpretation of the Case and Controversy requirement sits uneasily with his originalism. Scalia cites to the famous John Jay letter of 1793 declining to opine on a treaty interpretation; however, as discussed in another thread, this is a common misreading of the letter, which did not reject the notion of advisory opinions generally. In fact, the early Supreme Court, in keeping with long-standing English practice, gave advisory opinions on a number of matters. The notion of the case and controversy clause as a firm jurisdictional limit did not arise until an opinion by Roger Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) that was never actually issued but published posthumously in the late 19th century. The doctrine was not formally stated and established until the Muskrat case in 1911.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 10:25:02 AM
I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere. I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.
DOMA went up on the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. The decision applies generally to any federal recognition of a marriage recognized in...at least the state a person resides in, with a lot of related questions left to be decided.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 10:25:02 AM
ulmont: I was asking about the the DOMA decision. If no one opposed the lower court decision, why did it go up?
"Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" of the House of Representatives moved to intervene. The DOJ and BLAG both appealed, although DOJ was just looking for DOMA to be struck down by a higher court. The Supreme Court said "close enough for standing purposes."
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:18:55 AM
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
Forward it to Human Resources as an FYI.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:18:55 AM
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
Forward it to Human Resources as an FYI.
Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward. :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:18:55 AM
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
What would that achieve? If their prayers are answered, Jeebus is going to blow up Washington DC with lightning bolts or something? :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward. :P
Fuck that shit. No prayer in school, no prayer in the workplace. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward. :P
Fuck that shit. No prayer in school, no prayer in the workplace. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
:yes:
Old age is not an excuse!
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 11:24:13 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:18:55 AM
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
What would that achieve? If their prayers are answered, Jeebus is going to blow up Washington DC with lightning bolts or something? :hmm:
No clue. Maybe that the judges will change their minds? Who knows.
I'm just waiting on someone else to say something.... They will. It's not a question of if but when.
I hate old people. Get your nose out of other peoples' business, grandma.
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 11:28:18 AM
I hate old people. Get your nose out of other peoples' business, grandma.
Heh. Around here, it will be equally young and old praying.
Same here probably. :(
That said, I'm friended with tons of local Baptists on FB and they're at least smart enough to not make bigoted posts, and a few of them have made posts in the past about how they may not agree with it, but it doesn't give them the right to stop others from doing it.
These posts typically end with "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap though. :sleep:
Overt religiosity in the workplace is horrible and people like that should be clubbed, but it's so ubiquitous in my Federal office building job that I'm going to assume in the private sector which has none of our "diversity" programs and theoretical separation of church and state concerns that it is even more prevalent. It's never worthwhile to be the one going fighting those battles in the work place.
My particular office is actually very good about avoiding all mention of religion. It's probably because it's mostly an office of accountants (who have no emotions) and lawyers (who know better).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
Overt religiosity in the workplace is horrible and people like that should be clubbed, but it's so ubiquitous in my Federal office building job that I'm going to assume in the private sector which has none of our "diversity" programs and theoretical separation of church and state concerns that it is even more prevalent. It's never worthwhile to be the one going fighting those battles in the work place.
I always found it interesting how an admin assistant caught shit over her little 4" by 6" portrait of Jesus on her desk as offensive--
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fimages%2Fblog%2FEXID17243%2Fimages%2Fjesus.jpg&hash=e84b09ee19ba2904dca8961b90effa2ad6798796)
but the Lieutenant's sprawling 2' portrait of this--
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv621%2Fjhuth%2Fpraying_for_peace_RDCF.jpg&hash=45791cd92f9b3525c3175fdd4cacd08b64dd9aeb)
in his office wasn't.
Although, to be fair, that's an entirely different flavor of offensive. :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:18:55 AM
Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.
I can understand why that would be. Nothing is worse than a Wiccan or a Viking when you try and include them socially in anything.
I've only had one instance of religion or religiousity being a problem in the workplace.
Some stupid girl raised a stink over some voodoo dolls our director handed out to us as part of an effort to improve work efficiency (we were supposed to put curses on things like programming errors & whatnot-- sounds stupid but it was actually kind of fun) and an HR person came by & snagged them all off our desks. She didn't even work in our department, but said that seeing the voodoo dolls offended her as a Christian or something.
Outside of that, a person's religious views have never been an issue in any place I worked.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 11:47:01 AM
I've only had one instance of religion or religiousity being a problem in the workplace.
Some stupid girl raised a stink over some voodoo dolls our director handed out to us as part of an effort to improve work efficiency (we were supposed to put curses on things like programming errors & whatnot-- sounds stupid but it was actually kind of fun) and an HR person came by & snagged them all off our desks. She didn't even work in our department, but said that seeing the voodoo dolls offended her as a Christian or something.
Outside of that, a person's religious views have never been an issue in any place I worked.
Why would that offend a Christian? :huh:
I could see it offending a VooDoo practitioner more than a Christian, though I doubt a VooDoo practitioner would care that much. They'd probably get a chuckle out of it. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 11:43:10 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv621%2Fjhuth%2Fpraying_for_peace_RDCF.jpg&hash=45791cd92f9b3525c3175fdd4cacd08b64dd9aeb)
in his office wasn't.
Although, to be fair, that's an entirely different flavor of offensive. :lol:
That is absolutely awesome. If I hadn't already put up the demotivational pictures in my office I'd so buy that & put it up.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 26, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
Overt religiosity in the workplace is horrible and people like that should be clubbed, but it's so ubiquitous in my Federal office building job that I'm going to assume in the private sector which has none of our "diversity" programs and theoretical separation of church and state concerns that it is even more prevalent. It's never worthwhile to be the one going fighting those battles in the work place.
I'm not sure why, but nothing irritates me more than listening to a co-worker's voicemail end with, "And have a blessed day!" What if I want an evil day? Fuck you. :glare:
For some reason, the "have a blessed day" people down here are all either old or African-American, and almost all of them are female.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 11:50:41 AM
That is absolutely awesome. If I hadn't already put up the demotivational pictures in my office I'd so buy that & put it up.
:lol: That is so atrociously bad, I'd have more respect for you if you lined your office with Princess Diana commemorative dishes. :lol:
My mother in law has a bunch of those dishes on one of those dumb ceiling shelf things in her kitchen. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 11:50:41 AM
That is absolutely awesome. If I hadn't already put up the demotivational pictures in my office I'd so buy that & put it up.
:lol: That is so atrociously bad, I'd have more respect for you if you lined your office with Princess Diana commemorative dishes. :lol:
Hmm. I'll see what I can find. I do have some Obama commemorative plates I bought for 2 bucks a pop in 2009 to use as gag gifts. Still have three left, I think. They'll be funnier when he's out of office, though.
Here are some plate ideas from ebay:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs4.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmYEAghxV6rDt963yf0Rfuhw.jpg&hash=f0d5897869ff47777c113e660e663dc968ff8897)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs2.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmPHZWl_JvRG5-pfKOji3sEg.jpg&hash=509f40c958a44afec17d176bb25537cb715b6ac7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs3.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmkqxkK4jbVBj6wSP0oIWnsw.jpg&hash=0e79bc287d7eac0725388f4962afc1c40045da5c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs4.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmkuSh_t73VYZFTnYinXT3TA.jpg&hash=f85ab592f61af5a30b87a558457ef74e99c7a5b0)
Governor Moonbeam ordered country clerks to begin issuing gay marriage licenses in CA again pending lifting of whatever temporary court order was preventing that.
Meri's poor attitude would earn her a talking to in my office.
Quote from: merithyn on June 26, 2013, 11:50:11 AM
Why would that offend a Christian? :huh:
Not sure. Either seeing a heathen religion being "observed" offended her, or possibly (this is purely a guess on my part) she had been made to take some religious symbol or something off her desk and got all pissy when she saw that others could have voodoo dolls on theirs.
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
Not sure. Either seeing a heathen religion being "observed" offended her, or possibly (this is purely a guess on my part) she had been made to take some religious symbol or something off her desk and got all pissy when she saw that others could have voodoo dolls on theirs.
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
Sounds like a typical HR person. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
Not sure. Either seeing a heathen religion being "observed" offended her, or possibly (this is purely a guess on my part) she had been made to take some religious symbol or something off her desk and got all pissy when she saw that others could have voodoo dolls on theirs.
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
Sounds like a typical HR person. :ph34r:
How would you know :ph34r:
My gay co-worker informed me today that the gays will be gathering in and around Stonewall Inn after work. Thankfully I'll be far away in Brooklyn with Courtney Love.
Was his dad competent? I thought he was instrumental in loading up the budget with unaffordable goodies.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Thankfully I'll be far away in Brooklyn with Courtney Love.
Try not to get murd... I mean commit suicide. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 12:59:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2013, 12:57:15 PM
Thankfully I'll be far away in Brooklyn with Courtney Love.
Try not to get murd... I mean commit suicide. :)
Actually people have been wondering if with pride, we'll get more New York gay-bashings...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 12:58:28 PM
Was his dad competent? I thought he was instrumental in loading up the budget with unaffordable goodies.
Back in the day California could do that and get away with it, then the voters decided they wanted programs but no longer wanted to pay for them.
There's a Pride parade in Cincy this weekend. I'm sure it'll be a hoot. My wife has to be there to represent Citi for some reason.
And as much as I'd love to attend, I have a conflict as there is a new brewery opening Saturday.
Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2013, 01:07:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 12:58:28 PM
Was his dad competent? I thought he was instrumental in loading up the budget with unaffordable goodies.
Back in the day California could do that and get away with it, then the voters decided they wanted programs but no longer wanted to pay for them.
:yes: :(
Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2013, 01:07:15 PM
Back in the day California could do that and get away with it, then the voters decided they wanted programs but no longer wanted to pay for them.
If I'm not mistaken Moonbeam pere also contributed to the nuclear arms race in state salaries. Totally fair to pin prop 13 on retard California voters, but $150,000 prison guards goes to the state government.
On the lame front, I see that one of the proponents of prop 8 says that the district court ruling only applies to Los Angeles and Alameda counties and vows to fight to have the decision limited to those 2 counties when the case goes back to the lower court. Give up already. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
Not sure. Either seeing a heathen religion being "observed" offended her, or possibly (this is purely a guess on my part) she had been made to take some religious symbol or something off her desk and got all pissy when she saw that others could have voodoo dolls on theirs.
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
Sounds like a typical HR person. :ph34r:
Well, you're our expert in all matters relating to HR.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
You deserve each and every diversity in-service that can conceivably dropped on your massive forehead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 01:26:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
You deserve each and every diversity in-service that can conceivably dropped on your massive forehead.
She was always cool with me, up until I turned down her invitation to go to church with her :D
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
She was always cool with me, up until I turned down her invitation to go to church with her :D
Now see, that's just not building bridges across disciplines and embracing diversity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2013, 01:12:49 PM
If I'm not mistaken Moonbeam pere also contributed to the nuclear arms race in state salaries. Totally fair to pin prop 13 on retard California voters, but $150,000 prison guards goes to the state government.
He is far more known for the expansion (and funding) of the California University system. Again, big bucks but the tax base could support it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 01:26:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
She was a bit of a handful. If it wasn't religion, it was some race grievance she cooked up.
You deserve each and every diversity in-service that can conceivably dropped on your massive forehead.
She was always cool with me, up until I turned down her invitation to go to church with her :D
The one manager at my first job didn't like it either when I demurred on driving and hour and a half to her church for a Saturday morning fair.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
She was always cool with me, up until I turned down her invitation to go to church with her :D
Now see, that's just not building bridges across disciplines and embracing diversity.
I've embraced plenty of diversity in my career. I also embrace diversity at home :wub:
Please. I've yet to meet a non-white Argie chick (or an ugly one for that matter). :P
Quote from: Iormlund on June 26, 2013, 03:55:54 PM
Please. I've yet to meet a non-white Argie chick (or an ugly one for that matter). :P
She still talks funny!
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2013, 09:11:23 AM
The Court holds (5-4 of course) that: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction in the Prop 8 case.
A no brainer IMO
:lol:
QuoteGay pride marches and parades will be held this weekend across the United States as LGBT Pride Month draws to a close. Here are some local gay pride celebrations throughout the country:
San Francisco: Harvey Milk bobblehead day at AT&T Park
McComb, MS: The police department will go door to door giving homosexuals a special permanent marking on their forehead so everyone can know whom to be proud of
Addison, VT: William is going to proudly walk down Route 7 from the post office to the hardware store starting at 10 a.m. if anyone wants to come cheer him on
Reno, NV: Complimentary prime rib for anyone who comes out to friends and family at Harrah's
Boise, ID: Six or seven gay guys are going fishing up at the lake; should be a nice afternoon
Nantucket, MA: This year's parade to be populated mostly by married men who are only gay while on vacation
Bemidji, MN: Due to last year's poor turnout at the local parade, organizers will bus in some extra gays from Minneapolis
Lubbock, TX: Pride Parade on Main St. at noon to be immediately followed by memorial for those lost during Pride Parade
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 11:29:50 AM
:lol:
QuoteGay pride marches and parades will be held this weekend across the United States as LGBT Pride Month draws to a close. Here are some local gay pride celebrations throughout the country:
San Francisco: Harvey Milk bobblehead day at AT&T Park
McComb, MS: The police department will go door to door giving homosexuals a special permanent marking on their forehead so everyone can know whom to be proud of
Addison, VT: William is going to proudly walk down Route 7 from the post office to the hardware store starting at 10 a.m. if anyone wants to come cheer him on
Reno, NV: Complimentary prime rib for anyone who comes out to friends and family at Harrah's
Boise, ID: Six or seven gay guys are going fishing up at the lake; should be a nice afternoon
Nantucket, MA: This year's parade to be populated mostly by married men who are only gay while on vacation
Bemidji, MN: Due to last year's poor turnout at the local parade, organizers will bus in some extra gays from Minneapolis
Lubbock, TX: Pride Parade on Main St. at noon to be immediately followed by memorial for those lost during Pride Parade
I'd put this down as one of the many times that the Onion scores a miss.
I shouldn't have tainted it for you, sorry.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2013, 12:10:35 PM
I shouldn't have tainted it for you, sorry.
It's just most of those lines aren't funny. It's like when mongers gathers the elements of a joke but then doesn't execute.
I enjoyed the Lubbock bit. :)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1044952_586261368063537_1190189216_n.jpg)
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
I think we can find a joke about military people that is funny.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
Like Brain said, I think you just mean jokes by military people.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
What do you mean?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 07:34:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
What do you mean?
Phil's cartoon.
Was the guy who made the dinosaur cartoons military? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 29, 2013, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 29, 2013, 07:34:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
What do you mean?
Phil's cartoon.
I dont, but someone else might.
I find thses funny
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoblelol.com%2Fuploads%2F12%2Ffunny-military-pics.jpg&hash=03ca9a537b3e6a72d775c607595477cbf055af84)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedistractionnetwork.com%2Fimages%2Fwork-disasters-136.jpg&hash=d11bfee8e13a49d26840c52a4c201e73d831231d)
Maybe it just affects infantry guys.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
I'd say you need to get out more. Western humor is different from that with which you grew up.
Real WWII poster?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/970058_586959514660389_1450782038_n.jpg)
Garbon ought to like that one.
LOL, Guadalcanal Pride Day.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
Garbon ought to like that one.
Nah, it's not integrated.
Quote
Justice Kennedy to Supporters of Prop 8: Um, No
Justice refuses without comment to halt gay weddings
By the Associated Press
(AP) – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has denied a request from supporters of Proposition 8 to halt gay weddings in California. Kennedy turned away the request today with no additional comment. Same-sex marriage opponents asked him to step in yesterday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall following the court decisions. The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. They could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice.
So they wouldn't have let you in? Doesn't that sort of thing normally bug you? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 30, 2013, 12:38:45 PM
So they wouldn't have let you in? Doesn't that sort of thing normally bug you? :huh:
So I'm going to dislike an image of naked men because at the time said image was created, I would have not been allowed to serve in the army?
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
So I'm going to dislike an image of naked men because at the time said image was created, I would have not been allowed to serve in the army?
Hells no!
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 30, 2013, 12:38:45 PM
So they wouldn't have let you in? Doesn't that sort of thing normally bug you? :huh:
So I'm going to dislike an image of naked men because at the time said image was created, I would have not been allowed to serve in the army?
You would have been allowed to serve. I bet you would make a wonderful cook.
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2013, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
I'd say you need to get out more. Western humor is different from that with which you grew up.
Grumbler misses the stand up of comedy of his youth. Nobody could top Magnes and Cratinus.
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2013, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
I'd say you need to get out more. Western humor is different from that with which you grew up.
:hmm: I think I'm onto something here, at least with the first part.
On an unrelated note, the Hammer of Thor has been approved for headstones in military cemeteries.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 30, 2013, 04:47:10 PM
On an unrelated note, the Hammer of Thor has been approved for headstones in military cemeteries.
Guess you shouldn't have let gays in. Sow and reap, bitch.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 30, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
Quote
Justice Kennedy to Supporters of Prop 8: Um, No
Justice refuses without comment to halt gay weddings
By the Associated Press
(AP) – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has denied a request from supporters of Proposition 8 to halt gay weddings in California. Kennedy turned away the request today with no additional comment. Same-sex marriage opponents asked him to step in yesterday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall following the court decisions. The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. They could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice.
On a related note, I saw that the US has already granted green cards to non-citizen partners in gay marriages. Happy to see that this sort of stuff isn't being delayed. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2013, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2013, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
Why is it that every joke by and/or about military people is utterly not funny? Are drill sergeants trained to beat out the sense of humor out of new recruits?
I'd say you need to get out more. Western humor is different from that with which you grew up.
Grumbler misses the stand up of comedy of his youth. Nobody could top Magnes and Cratinus.
They were called stand up philosophers back then.
So I only just saw it but I have to admit to liking Nancy Pelosi's response when asked about Michelle Bachmann's denunciation of the SC rulings on gay marriage: "Who cares?" :D