Languish.org

QuoteGay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court in Close Ruling

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

The 5-to-4 decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.

As in earlier civil rights cases, the Supreme Court had moved cautiously and methodically, laying careful judicial groundwork for a transformative decision.

As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.

Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court's decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

The court did not agree to resolve the issue for the rest of the nation until January, in cases filed by gay and lesbian couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court heard extended arguments in April, and the justices seemed sharply divided over what the Constitution has to say about same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said their clients had a fundamental right to marry and to equal protection, adding that the bans they challenged demeaned their dignity, imposed countless practical difficulties and inflicted particular harm on their children.

The Obama administration, which had gradually come to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, was unequivocal in urging the justices to rule for the plaintiffs.

"Gay and lesbian people are equal," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said. "They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now."

Lawyers for the four states said their bans were justified by tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex unions. They added that the question should be resolved democratically, at the polls and in state legislatures, rather than by judges.

The Supreme Court had once before agreed to hear a case arising from a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban, California's Proposition 8, in 2012 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. At the time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry.

But when the court's ruling arrived in June 2013, the justices ducked, with a majority saying the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressing a view on the ultimate question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.

A second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided the movement for same-sex marriage with what turned out to be a powerful tailwind. The decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions.

The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage.

In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the Windsor decision to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:21:09 AM
:cool:

I look forward to all of the hicks in my FB feed whining and gnashing their teeth. :)

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:25:50 AM
My tea party sis will be happy for her kids (one of her sons is already married to his boyfriend)

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:26:38 AM
Excellent decision.  :boff:

I wish our silly country would finally get moving on this.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:28:25 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:25:50 AM
My tea party sis will be happy for her kids (one of her sons is already married to his boyfriend)

UMURRICA IS RUN BAH PERVERTS NOW LOLOL!!!!!!

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:26:38 AM
Excellent decision.  :boff:

I wish our silly country would finally get moving on this.

Quote from: celedhring on June 26, 2015, 09:29:28 AM
I'm surprised Germany of all places still doesn't have it.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:30:37 AM

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:28:25 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:25:50 AM
My tea party sis will be happy for her kids (one of her sons is already married to his boyfriend)

UMURRICA IS RUN BAH PERVERTS NOW LOLOL!!!!!!

She's a funny mix of tea party slogans and pro-LGBT rights. She just posted that she's very disappointed with her church (Latter Day Saints) that they don't accept her daughter's orientation (she has 4 kids, 1 is straight).

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
She's a funny mix of tea party slogans and pro-LGBT rights. She just posted that she's very disappointed with her church (Latter Day Saints) that they don't accept her daughter's orientation (she has 4 kids, 1 is straight).

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:32:06 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
She's a funny mix of tea party slogans and pro-LGBT rights. She just posted that she's very disappointed with her church (Latter Day Saints) that they don't accept her daughter's orientation (she has 4 kids, 1 is straight).

Boy did she pick the wrong church to belong to. :wacko:

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:31:56 AM
Well, if tea party-ers are supposed to be libertarians as they claim, they should be for gay marriage and sexual freedom. It's the "libertarians" who want the state out of everything - except people's bedrooms and private lives - that are weird.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:28:25 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:25:50 AM
My tea party sis will be happy for her kids (one of her sons is already married to his boyfriend)

UMURRICA IS RUN BAH PERVERTS NOW LOLOL!!!!!!

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:32:52 AM
Jaron is telling me many Mormons are quite nice people. :unsure:

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:33:13 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:31:56 AM
Well, if tea party-ers are supposed to be libertarians as they claim, they should be for gay marriage and sexual freedom. It's the "libertarians" who want the state out of everything - except people's bedrooms and private lives - that are weird.

I'm a social libertarian so yes, I don't think marriage is any of the state's fucking business.  But since it insists on sticking its nose into peoples' bedrooms, then gays must have equal rights too.

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:31:35 AM
Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:34:16 AM
Yeah, exactly.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:40:05 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:34:16 AM
Yeah, exactly.

OTOH I have seen other libertarians say "The state shouldn't be in the marriage business, so gay marriage shouldn't be legalized since NO marriage should be regulated by law."

I have a dim view of these people because I suspect they are homophobes but too cowardly to admit it so they try to hide behind a 'technicality'.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:40:05 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:34:16 AM
Yeah, exactly.

OTOH I have seen other libertarians say "The state shouldn't be in the marriage business, so gay marriage shouldn't be legalized since NO marriage should be regulated by law."

I have a dim view of these people because I suspect they are homophobes but too cowardly to admit it so they try to hide behind a 'technicality'.

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 09:35:32 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:31:35 AM
Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

So it'll have to wait until Merkel retires and/or the SPD regains power?

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
She's a funny mix of tea party slogans and pro-LGBT rights. She just posted that she's very disappointed with her church (Latter Day Saints) that they don't accept her daughter's orientation (she has 4 kids, 1 is straight).

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
Well, the easy way to tell is if these same folks were out complaining about HETERO marriages before the whole gay marriage debate thing sprung up. I suspect few to none were.  ;)

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:59:37 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I disagree with you very strongly. Human rights issues should not be subject of a popular opinion.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:59:37 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I disagree with you very strongly. Human rights issues should not be subject of a popular opinion.

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 09:35:32 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:31:35 AM
Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

So it'll have to wait until Merkel retires and/or the SPD regains power?

I guess if they really wanted it, they could force the issue. The strange thing is that the left parties have a majority in both chambers of our parliament but the SPD and Left party hate each other, so the SPD rather lets Merkel govern. But Merkels 311 MPs couldn't stop the 320 left-wing MPs from passing any law they want, especially as I suspect that there are lots of MPs among the 311 conservatives that would secretly or openly support such a law as well. So I would guess that there is a majority of MPs in favor of gay marriage, but out of fear of breaking the coalition, the SPD doesn't push for gay marriage. Maybe they'll just do it right before the next election. :hmm:

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 10:03:26 AM
Similarly, it's no coincidence this ruling is being made in 2015, not 1985.  It's only now that gay marriage is becoming accepted that the court has acted.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 10:03:51 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 09:35:32 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 09:31:35 AM
Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

So it'll have to wait until Merkel retires and/or the SPD regains power?

I guess if they really wanted it, they could force the issue. The strange thing is that the left parties have a majority in both chambers of our parliament but the SPD and Left party hate each other, so the SPD rather lets Merkel govern. But Merkels 311 MPs couldn't stop the 320 left-wing MPs from passing any law they want, especially as I suspect that there are lots of MPs among the 311 conservatives that would secretly or openly support such a law as well. So I would guess that there is a majority of MPs in favor of gay marriage, but out of fear of breaking the coalition, the SPD doesn't push for gay marriage. Maybe they'll just do it right before the next election. :hmm:

Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 10:03:51 AM
Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

QuoteSCALIA: The Supreme Court is a 'threat to American democracy'

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage shows just how much trouble American democracy is in.

In a strongly-worded dissent, the conservative justice wrote that he did not care that gay marriage was now legal, but he said that the Court's ability to make this decision represented a threat to democracy.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

The conservative justice railed against his fellow justices, calling the majority opinion "egotistical" and pointing out that the justices were a homogeneous group that didn't represent the people. As proof, Scalia pointed out that many went to the same law schools, and none were evangelical or protestant Christians.

"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," Scalia said.

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

Scalia's dissent also contained unusual bits about how marriage threatens happiness.

"If intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage," Scalia said. "Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
An example would be abortion which is still very contentious in America.

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 10:16:35 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2015, 10:03:51 AM
Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

It's both part of our political culture. SPD and CDU (and less so FDP and Greens) see it as their constitutional obligation to form a stable government, if need be as junior partner. That's one of the lessons of the Weimar Republic. As German politics is very consensus-oriented, they'll form a coalition and stick to it for four years. They write down common political projects at the start of a legislative period and then work through that list. Instances where MPs are "allowed" (despite their constitutional independence) to vote according to their conscience instead of following faction discipline are very rare. One example I can think of is a vote about the right to assisted suicide later this year.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
Gotta love Nino
The Court telling the legislatures that can't refuse a piece of paper to two dudes ---> threat to democracy!
The Court denying the legislature the power to impede Sheldon Anderson from buying elections ---> free speech!

Quote"If intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage," Scalia said. "Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

Besides, it's not as if the pro-gay marriage side hadn't had a ton of success in advancing their agenda legislatively.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 10:17:42 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
An example would be abortion which is still very contentious in America.

Abortion is contentious because some people believe it is equivalent to murder.  Gay marriage is not the same kind of issue.  There will be some fiery rhetoric from usual suspect, it will die down, and cease to a be a major issue.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
Gotta love Nino
The Court telling the legislatures that can't refuse a piece of paper to two dudes ---> threat to democracy!
The Court denying the legislature the power to impede Sheldon Anderson from buying elections ---> free speech!

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 10:41:10 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
Gotta love Nino
The Court telling the legislatures that can't refuse a piece of paper to two dudes ---> threat to democracy!
The Court denying the legislature the power to impede Sheldon Anderson from buying elections ---> free speech!

I don't get how his point does not equally apply to any decision on a law ever made by the Supreme Court ever. Yes there are checks on what the Legislature can do. Yes there are checks on what the President can do. That is why we have a court and it is one of the last bastions of republicanism left in our system. Weird that he is calling for its abolition and establishment of a 100% parliamentary system. He can always move to the UK for that.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2015, 10:39:35 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 10:17:42 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
An example would be abortion which is still very contentious in America.

Abortion is contentious because some people believe it is equivalent to murder.  Gay marriage is not the same kind of issue.  There will be some fiery rhetoric from usual suspect, it will die down, and cease to a be a major issue.

The explanation seems clear.  Scalia sees his role as being a member of an unelected committee who's obligation it is to reflect societal values (as he sees them) rather than being a Supreme Court Justice responsible for applying the Constitution.

Quote from: DGuller on June 26, 2015, 10:51:12 AM
I do get the feeling that if a Republican president wins the 2016 election

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2015, 10:28:46 AM
Has Sheldon Anderson ever succeeded in buying an election?  Seems to me he has thrown wads of money at a succession of losers.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 11:03:49 AM
All the more reason the legislation should stand, protect the guy from himself.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
Scalia is just a Republican. 9/10, his ideology does the talking.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 11:07:24 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
Scalia is just a Republican. 9/10, his ideology does the talking.

Kennedy is a Republican and went the other way
Roberts is a Republican and wrote 2 opinions sustaining ACA
Not quite that simple.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 11:07:24 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
Scalia is just a Republican. 9/10, his ideology does the talking.

Kennedy is a Republican and went the other way
Roberts is a Republican and wrote 2 opinions sustaining ACA
Not quite that simple.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 10:24:41 AM
Based on the quoted excerpts seem to be a thinly veiled call to vote Republican so that those liberal judges might get replaced at some point.

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 11:37:19 AM
I wonder if this means my buddy who refused to marry his girlfriend until we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it  :lol:

QuoteScalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day

WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. "Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I'm going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren't I?" said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. "I'm going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he's on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great." While they added that they aren't looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusade

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 11:38:07 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 11:37:19 AM
I wonder if this means my buddy who refused to marry his girlfriend until we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it  :lol:

Just like I wonder if the Texas pastor who threatened to set himself on fire if we have marriage equality will now have to go through with it.  :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:33:13 AM
I'm a social libertarian so yes, I don't think marriage is any of the state's fucking business.  But since it insists on sticking its nose into peoples' bedrooms, then gays must have equal rights too.

Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2015, 09:40:05 AM
OTOH I have seen other libertarians say "The state shouldn't be in the marriage business, so gay marriage shouldn't be legalized since NO marriage should be regulated by law."

I have a dim view of these people because I suspect they are homophobes but too cowardly to admit it so they try to hide behind a 'technicality'.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 26, 2015, 11:55:34 AM
To my mind, government-sanctioned marriage is an illegal government endorsement of religious ceremony. 

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:10:47 PM
hijacked by religion at some point in history.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
That's why I like the German/Austrian way: the legal part of marriage is registered in front of the state. If you want to have a religious ceremony of whatever your persuasion is that's fine, but it's not what will constitute a marriage before the law (so if you want to have a church wedding, you will have the registration office AND the mass in two events, often on the same day).

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:16:33 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
That's why I like the German/Austrian way: the legal part of marriage is registered in front of the state. If you want to have a religious ceremony of whatever your persuasion is that's fine, but it's not what will constitute a marriage before the law (so if you want to have a church wedding, you will have the registration office AND the mass in two events, often on the same day).

Isn't this the same way it works everywhere?

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 09:30:27 AM
You can imagine how my Facebook feed looks right now. :P

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
Isn't this the same way it works everywhere?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2015, 12:22:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
Isn't this the same way it works everywhere?

No.  In the US clergy are legally empowered to perform the legal act of marriage.

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:23:56 PM
Then why did I have to go down to the County Office and sign paperwork? Eh oh well.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:10:47 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 26, 2015, 11:55:34 AM
To my mind, government-sanctioned marriage is an illegal government endorsement of religious ceremony. 

To me, this view (which for some reason is touted around quite frequently) is one of the most idiotic positions one can take. There is much more to marriage than just a religious aspect and that has always been the case historically - if anything, I would say it is a perfectly socially useful legal contract that was endorsed and hijacked by religion at some point in history.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:00:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

It must be like when I turned 21 in France. Here you are finally legally allowed to do something in the US you have been able to do for months overseas.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2015, 12:25:36 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:23:56 PM
Then why did I have to go down to the County Office and sign paperwork? Eh oh well.

Because you need the state's permission before the parson can close the deal.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

I know exactly what my mother would say if I were in your shoes: "... and now that it's legal, will you be finding a nice doctor or lawyer and settling down?!"  ;)

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:00:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

It must be like when I turned 21 in France. Here you are finally legally allowed to do something in the US you have been able to do for months overseas.

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

I know exactly what my mother would say if I were in your shoes: "... and now that it's legal, will you be finding a nice doctor or lawyer and settling down?!"  ;)

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 01:04:19 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 12:58:32 PM
My mother called me first thing her morning to offer her congratulations. :D

I know exactly what my mother would say if I were in your shoes: "... and now that it's legal, will you be finding a nice doctor or lawyer and settling down?!"  ;)

I hope your Mom wasn't disappointed that you became a lawyer instead of marrying one. :P

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2015, 01:08:51 PM
Whatever happened to true love?  :(

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:11:01 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 26, 2015, 01:08:51 PM
Whatever happened to true love?  :(

[mom]"You can truly love a rich person! It's even easier than truly loving someone who is poor!" [/mom]

Quote'Love is Love': Americans Celebrate Marriage Equality

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples can marry everywhere. Across the country, gay couples headed to city halls and county courthouses, to gain the legal rights and recognition long denied to them. But not in Pike County, Alabama. Probate Judge Wes Allen discontinued issuing licenses in February rather than sanction gay unions, his office told The New York Times, and it has no plans to issue any more to the country's 33,000 residents, gay or straight.

Same-sex marriage already existed in most of the United States before today's decision, either by legislative act, democratic vote, or judicial ruling. Resistance in the remaining jurisdictions is sporadic, like in Pike County. But many states seem to be abandoning the fight altogether. Kentucky, North Dakota, and South Dakota began issuing licenses statewide shortly after the ruling. "I acknowledge that the Supreme Court's ruling is now the law of the land," said Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. Some Texas counties began issuing licenses almost immediately after the decision was announced, while others said they would need to update their forms first.

Among Democrats, whose party shifted from caution to enthusiastic support for LGBT rights over the past five years, responses to the decision were jubilant. Democratic presidential candidates joined in the celebration. "Proud," said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a one-word tweet, with a picture attached that said "history" in rainbow letters. "For far too long our justice system has marginalized the gay community," said Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, "and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people." Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley praised both the Court's decision and his state for "leading the way" on the issue.

Among the wide multitude of Republican presidential candidates, reactions ranged from resigned acceptance to undisguised anger. "While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law," said Florida Senator Marco Rubio in a statement. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush also struck a conciliatory tone. "In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side," he said in a statement. At the same time, Bush noted, "it is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

The religious-liberty theme echoed throughout the entire range of GOP responses. Ben Carson, a former neurosurgeon who supports same-sex civil unions, urged Congress "to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected."

But among some Republican presidential candidates, the mood was far more hostile. "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," said former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in a statement. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat." Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal complained that the decision "tramples on states' rights."  Calling the Supreme Court "completely out of control," Jindal added: "If we want to save some money lets just get rid of the court."

Other candidates pledged to carry on their fight against rising support for marriage equality among Americans. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker criticized "five unelected judges" for redefining marriage and called for a constitutional amendment to override the Court's decision. Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, vowed to appoint "strict Constitutional conservatives" to the Supreme Court if elected president.

Perhaps the strongest official statement of support came from the White House, where President Obama spoke at length shortly after the ruling came down. "This ruling is a victory for America," he said in a White House press conference. After supporting civil unions during his first election in 2008, Obama became the first sitting president to support marriage equality in May 2012. He said at the time that his views on the issue had "evolved." Today, the president was more succinct: "Love is love."

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:26:03 PM
Rubio, Bush, and Carson handled it right. Nothing there that could bit them down the line.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 01:35:17 PM
And I doubt it's completely over. Some states still don't protect LGBT from discrimination; and don't forget that some states rank freedom of religion higher than gay rights, so religious business owners and others can deny service to LGBT if it would violate their "deeply held beliefs".

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:36:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

I think it goes a great deal further back than that.

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:37:52 PM
What am I looking at there Marty? Besides the White House's parking lot.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:37:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:36:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

I think it goes a great deal further back than that.

Still, do you think it came faster than everybody thought 10 years ago?

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM
Race, OTOH, is going to be a problem in the US for a very long time, I think.

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

In the US, I don't think homophobia has real legs - the same thing happened in Canada: in my lifetime, in Toronto we went from gays being regularly beaten up by the cops to widespread social approval, to the mayor heading up the Pride Parade and advertising the city as a mecca for gay marriages. Conservatives have mostly turned to other issues - it has become more or less a non-issue.

Race, OTOH, is going to be a problem in the US for a very long time, I think.

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

In the US, I don't think homophobia has real legs - the same thing happened in Canada: in my lifetime, in Toronto we went from gays being regularly beaten up by the cops to widespread social approval, to the mayor heading up the Pride Parade and advertising the city as a mecca for gay marriages. Conservatives have mostly turned to other issues - it has become more or less a non-issue.

Race, OTOH, is going to be a problem in the US for a very long time, I think.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 01:35:17 PM
And I doubt it's completely over. Some states still don't protect LGBT from discrimination; and don't forget that some states rank freedom of religion higher than gay rights, so religious business owners and others can deny service to LGBT if it would violate their "deeply held beliefs".

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

In the US, I don't think homophobia has real legs - the same thing happened in Canada: in my lifetime, in Toronto we went from gays being regularly beaten up by the cops to widespread social approval, to the mayor heading up the Pride Parade and advertising the city as a mecca for gay marriages. Conservatives have mostly turned to other issues - it has become more or less a non-issue.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

In the US, I don't think homophobia has real legs - the same thing happened in Canada: in my lifetime, in Toronto we went from gays being regularly beaten up by the cops to widespread social approval, to the mayor heading up the Pride Parade and advertising the city as a mecca for gay marriages. Conservatives have mostly turned to other issues - it has become more or less a non-issue.

Race, OTOH, is going to be a problem in the US for a very long time, I think.

While I agree that I don't think it'll have enduring longevity, it isn't like homophobia is something that first appeared in your life time.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2015, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 01:35:17 PM
And I doubt it's completely over. Some states still don't protect LGBT from discrimination; and don't forget that some states rank freedom of religion higher than gay rights, so religious business owners and others can deny service to LGBT if it would violate their "deeply held beliefs".

The difference being that whereas getting married is a right that all straights* enjoyed, "protected status" class for employment purposes is only granted to certain people.

*Monogamous ones

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:43:58 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Incidentally, isn't this the fastest cultural war in US history? In 2004, when Massachussets was passing gay marriage, it seemed like a very long way to go - maybe a thing for our lifetime, but not necessarily. 11 years down the line, the question is over.

In the US, I don't think homophobia has real legs - the same thing happened in Canada: in my lifetime, in Toronto we went from gays being regularly beaten up by the cops to widespread social approval, to the mayor heading up the Pride Parade and advertising the city as a mecca for gay marriages. Conservatives have mostly turned to other issues - it has become more or less a non-issue.

Race, OTOH, is going to be a problem in the US for a very long time, I think.

While I agree that I don't think it'll have enduring longevity, it isn't like homophobia is something that first appeared in your life time.

Of course not. What I meant was that we went from a default setting where society approved of homophobia (even to the point of condoning violence against gays) to a default setting where society dissaproves of homophobia. The homophobic default, of course, long predates me.

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2015, 01:46:04 PM
Sure but then someone is always alive during transition periods. :P

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2015, 01:42:38 PM

Arab countries, Slavic countries, ... that might be a longer, more uphill battle.

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 12:15:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 12:10:47 PM
hijacked by religion at some point in history.

The Ecloga issued by Leo III of course. Geez and you call yourself a lawyer.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 26, 2015, 02:00:12 PM
lot's of arabs in European cities, plenty of gays being beaten up (or even murdered) by them.

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2015, 02:08:06 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 26, 2015, 02:00:12 PM
lot's of arabs in European cities, plenty of gays being beaten up (or even murdered) by them.

:yeahright:

Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 02:29:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

'Democracy without meaningful constitutional protections for minorities is like three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner'.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 02:29:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

'Democracy without meaningful constitutional protections for minorities is like three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner'.  ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2015, 11:07:24 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
Scalia is just a Republican. 9/10, his ideology does the talking.

Kennedy is a Republican and went the other way
Roberts is a Republican and wrote 2 opinions sustaining ACA
Not quite that simple.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2015, 11:39:51 AM

QuoteScalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day

WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. "Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I'm going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren't I?" said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. "I'm going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he's on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great." While they added that they aren't looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusade

The Onion is killing it today. :D

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:39:39 PMI was concerned it would be a long struggle that would especially make Texas look bad.

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:09:30 PM

The irony here is that my brother *did* marry a woman who inherited piles of money, truly wealthy - and they use none of it. They live as poor academics - they are both profs at the university of Iowa.   ;)

Quote from: Monoriu on June 26, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
I hope this puts an end to this ridiculous controversy  :showoff:

QuoteHow Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Affect Religious Liberty?

For a long time, supporters of gay marriage in the U.S. were in the minority. As early as last year, that started changing, and now, a solid majority of Americans support same-sex unions. As of Friday, they can count the Supreme Court as their ally: In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that LGBT individuals have a Constitutionally protected right to wed.

What does this mean for the shrinking number—but still substantial portion—of Americans who oppose gay marriage, particularly on religious grounds? In their dissents to the Court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas worry other Americans' right to dissent to gay marriage, just as they have. They worry what will happen as those who oppose gay marriage become, for the first time in this country's history, a minority.

This is not a new fear. Especially over the last two years, as more and more states have legalized same-sex marriage, religious conservatives have expressed anxiety about attacks on religious freedom: the cake baker who doesn't want to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, the college that faces potential consequences for not supporting homosexuality. In a statement outside of the Supreme Court following the Obergefell decision, Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "We need to be the people who know how to articulate a Christian vision of sexuality that will be increasingly counter-cultural from this point on."

Alito shares this anxiety. "Today's decision ... will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent," he argues.

On Friday, same-sex marriage supporters outside of the Supreme Court were giddy with delight—advocates have been working toward this moment for literally decades. There was also somewhat giddy dissent: Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor and a GOP presidential candidate, suggested that the Court should be abolished. Pike Couty, Alabama, has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. But as Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas point out, this decision will almost certainly kick off a series of legal challenges related to religious liberty. The justices focus on three issues in particular, some of which have already created legal and political tussles: gay adoption; the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and the obligation of private churches and individuals to recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

As The New York Times wrote earlier this month, this decision means that "gay couples [will] for the first time be able to widely adopt children regardless of which state they live in." Same-sex partners have long struggled to secure adoption rights, particularly in states that place limitations on the kinds of couples that can adopt. Mississippi, for example, has a law expressly forbidding adoption by couples of the same gender; Nebraska restricts same-sex couples from being foster parents. These laws may face challenges in light of the Court's decision, but another kind of law may become more common: Earlier in June, Michigan passed a law allowing adoption agencies—even those that are publicly funded—to refuse to place children with same-sex couples if they have religious objections to doing so. It's unclear how this religious-liberty claim might be interpreted in light of Obergefell; this is one of the "hard questions" that will be raised by the Court's decision, Roberts writes, and "there is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court."

The other example Roberts specifically calls out is the tax status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This was a question that came up during oral arguments for Obergefell: Alito raised a 1983 case involving the evangelical Christian Bob Jones University, which had refused to allow interracial dating on its campus. The Court ruled that the school could not be tax exempt if it maintained its ban; the university accepted the consequences, not changing its policy until 2000. The question, now, is what will happen to the many, many religious organizations that don't support homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. This involve everything from stated policies—"for example, [when] a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples," Roberts writes—to issues of employment and benefits for employees in gay unions.

Examples of this have already come up. The most prominent example is that of Gordon College, which faced the possibility of losing its accreditation after the New England Associations of Schools and Colleges asked it to review how its policies affect gay students. The school has decided to maintain its position on sexuality, which prohibits student or faculty sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It could be a signal of similar cases to come—last summer, for example, a broad coalition of faith leaders asked President Obama to provide a exemption for religious groups in an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. Those same groups that asked for the exemption will likely face new questions in the days to come on how the Obergefell decision should affect their policies.

Finally, individual church leaders—and judges—will face decisions about whether to perform and recognize gay marriages. In June, North Carolina passed a law allowing judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether if they object to same-sex unions on religious grounds. This law may only be the beginning. "In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas writes. "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

The future of gay marriage has long been a question in the United States, and on Friday, the country got an answer. The questions and conversations surrounding gay marriage now will be of a different kind: what it means to oppose, rather than support, same-sex marriage.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 26, 2015, 06:19:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2015, 01:39:39 PMI was concerned it would be a long struggle that would especially make Texas look bad.

You say this like you don't think Abbott will find a way to make a complete ass out of himself regarding the whole thing.

QuoteTexas Guv Issues Religious Liberties Directive After Gay Marriage Ruling

The Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples across the U.S. have the right to marry left officials in Texas reeling.

Following the ruling, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a directive on Friday ordering state agencies to "prioritize compliance" with the First Amendment and Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The directive states that agencies should make sure that nobody "takes any adverse action against" people "substantially motivated by sincere religious belief."

"The law protects religious liberty not only in houses of worship—but also in schools, in businesses, in the military, in public forums, and in the town square. These protections are afforded to all people, of all faiths," Abbott wrote in the directive. "Yet in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the law's promise of religious liberty will be tested by some who seek to silence and marginalize those whose conscience will not allow them to participate in or endorse marriages that are incompatible with their religious beliefs."

In a statement blasting the Supreme Court's decision earlier on Friday, Abbott said that he would take direct action to protect the religious liberties of Texas residents.

"As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans' religious liberties," he said in a statement.

Abbott wrote that the Supreme Court has become "an unelected nine-member legislature."

"Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court's previous decisions reserve to the people of the States," he said. "Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court's decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage."

The state's attorney general also expressed concern that the ruling could lead to intolerance of certain religious beliefs.

"The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a Friday statement. "This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion."

"It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such abuse," he continued. "Displays of hate and intolerance against people of faith should be denounced by all people of good will and spark concern among anyone who believes in religious liberty and freedom for all."

Though he disapproved of the ruling, Paxton said that Texas would be following the Supreme Court ruling, and county clerks in Texas began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Friday.

Quote"Current state law is still in effect until the courts order us otherwise," said Mike Reed, Jindal's spokesman in the governor's office.

"There is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana," [Attorney General Buddy Caldwell] said in a written statement.

Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2015, 10:42:26 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 26, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
I hope this puts an end to this ridiculous controversy  :showoff:

So when gay marriage in China/Hong Kong, Mono?  :hmm:

QuoteMassachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

Quote from: Syt on June 27, 2015, 12:30:46 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/how-will-the-us-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision-affect-religious-liberty/396986/?utm_source=SFFB

QuoteHow Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Affect Religious Liberty?

For a long time, supporters of gay marriage in the U.S. were in the minority. As early as last year, that started changing, and now, a solid majority of Americans support same-sex unions. As of Friday, they can count the Supreme Court as their ally: In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that LGBT individuals have a Constitutionally protected right to wed.

What does this mean for the shrinking number—but still substantial portion—of Americans who oppose gay marriage, particularly on religious grounds? In their dissents to the Court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas worry other Americans' right to dissent to gay marriage, just as they have. They worry what will happen as those who oppose gay marriage become, for the first time in this country's history, a minority.

This is not a new fear. Especially over the last two years, as more and more states have legalized same-sex marriage, religious conservatives have expressed anxiety about attacks on religious freedom: the cake baker who doesn't want to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, the college that faces potential consequences for not supporting homosexuality. In a statement outside of the Supreme Court following the Obergefell decision, Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "We need to be the people who know how to articulate a Christian vision of sexuality that will be increasingly counter-cultural from this point on."

Alito shares this anxiety. "Today's decision ... will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent," he argues.

On Friday, same-sex marriage supporters outside of the Supreme Court were giddy with delight—advocates have been working toward this moment for literally decades. There was also somewhat giddy dissent: Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor and a GOP presidential candidate, suggested that the Court should be abolished. Pike Couty, Alabama, has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. But as Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas point out, this decision will almost certainly kick off a series of legal challenges related to religious liberty. The justices focus on three issues in particular, some of which have already created legal and political tussles: gay adoption; the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and the obligation of private churches and individuals to recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

As The New York Times wrote earlier this month, this decision means that "gay couples [will] for the first time be able to widely adopt children regardless of which state they live in." Same-sex partners have long struggled to secure adoption rights, particularly in states that place limitations on the kinds of couples that can adopt. Mississippi, for example, has a law expressly forbidding adoption by couples of the same gender; Nebraska restricts same-sex couples from being foster parents. These laws may face challenges in light of the Court's decision, but another kind of law may become more common: Earlier in June, Michigan passed a law allowing adoption agencies—even those that are publicly funded—to refuse to place children with same-sex couples if they have religious objections to doing so. It's unclear how this religious-liberty claim might be interpreted in light of Obergefell; this is one of the "hard questions" that will be raised by the Court's decision, Roberts writes, and "there is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court."

The other example Roberts specifically calls out is the tax status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This was a question that came up during oral arguments for Obergefell: Alito raised a 1983 case involving the evangelical Christian Bob Jones University, which had refused to allow interracial dating on its campus. The Court ruled that the school could not be tax exempt if it maintained its ban; the university accepted the consequences, not changing its policy until 2000. The question, now, is what will happen to the many, many religious organizations that don't support homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. This involve everything from stated policies—"for example, [when] a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples," Roberts writes—to issues of employment and benefits for employees in gay unions.

Examples of this have already come up. The most prominent example is that of Gordon College, which faced the possibility of losing its accreditation after the New England Associations of Schools and Colleges asked it to review how its policies affect gay students. The school has decided to maintain its position on sexuality, which prohibits student or faculty sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It could be a signal of similar cases to come—last summer, for example, a broad coalition of faith leaders asked President Obama to provide a exemption for religious groups in an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. Those same groups that asked for the exemption will likely face new questions in the days to come on how the Obergefell decision should affect their policies.

Finally, individual church leaders—and judges—will face decisions about whether to perform and recognize gay marriages. In June, North Carolina passed a law allowing judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether if they object to same-sex unions on religious grounds. This law may only be the beginning. "In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas writes. "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

The future of gay marriage has long been a question in the United States, and on Friday, the country got an answer. The questions and conversations surrounding gay marriage now will be of a different kind: what it means to oppose, rather than support, same-sex marriage.

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
I can't wait till that dreadful facebook filter goes away. <_<

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2015, 09:06:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:09:30 PM

The irony here is that my brother *did* marry a woman who inherited piles of money, truly wealthy - and they use none of it. They live as poor academics - they are both profs at the university of Iowa.   ;)

I imagine you can live a decent upper middle class lifestyle on the salary of two professors.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
He could have mean that, despite having great wealth, they live very frugal lives.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
He could have mean that, despite having great wealth, they live very frugal lives.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2015, 03:15:08 AM


I don't understand why religious views should be more protected than other views.

Quote from: celedhring on June 27, 2015, 09:10:23 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
I can't wait till that dreadful facebook filter goes away. <_<

Agree. Everybody in my news feed is using it now. And most of them aren't even American.

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2015, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: celedhring on June 27, 2015, 09:10:23 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
I can't wait till that dreadful facebook filter goes away. <_<

Agree. Everybody in my news feed is using it now. And most of them aren't even American.

It's a gay pride week thingie. The US situation is icing on the cake.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2015, 02:03:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2015, 03:15:08 AM


I don't understand why religious views should be more protected than other views.

Because you are a worthless European.  That's why you don't understand.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2015, 05:27:03 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2015, 02:03:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2015, 03:15:08 AM


I don't understand why religious views should be more protected than other views.

Because you are a worthless European.  That's why you don't understand.

I don't think I'm worthless.

QuoteCNN confuses butt plug and dildo banner for ISIS flag at Pride

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2015, 11:27:02 PM
This must be the best headline ever at Pink News:

QuoteCNN confuses butt plug and dildo banner for ISIS flag at Pride

:lol:

I guess this story could be used in philosophy and logic classes as an illustration of Occam's Razor in action.  :lol:

Quote...What's interesting, and so far under-appreciated about Mr Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case, is that the court explicitly denies that the executive branch had the authority to resolve the ambiguities in the text of the Affordable Care Act. Many commentators predicted that the case would be decided on a principle known as "Chevron deference", first articulated in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council, which states that the court should defer to the executive branch's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, so long as it is reasonable. But some on the court, Mr Roberts included, don't much care for the Chevron principle. It weakens the power of judicial review, the court's authority "to say what the law is", as first set forth in Marbury v Madison, which Mr Roberts duly mentions in his ruling. Now, in cases of large "economic and political significance", the Chevron principle does not apply. The court had not fully embraced this limit on the executive branch's authority to interpret the meaning of legislation until now, in the Obamacare decision. Although the court happens to agree with the IRS's interpretation of the statute, Mr Roberts' ruling goes to some pains to say that, because the IRS had not been specifically empowered by the legislature to make this sort of economically and politically significant determination, it did not have the authority to do so. The court need not defer to the use of authority the executive branch doesn't have.

This is a very important development. The court has ruled that when the interpretation of ambiguous legislation has potentially profound consequences, and congress didn't delegate interpretative authority to a specific administrative agency, it is the court's job, not the executive's, to decide what the law says. "It is...the Court's task", Mr Roberts wrote, "to determine the correct reading" of an unclear law. Which is a nice way of telling the executive branch to take Chevron deference and stuff it.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, calls Mr Roberts opinion "a masterwork of indirection". Mr Sunstein, who had a hand in the executive branch's interpretation of the Obamacare as the former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, says that although the decision may vindicate the president's pet programme, "it is also a strong assertion of the court's, and not the executive branch's, ultimate power to say what the law is".

R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at R Street, a free-market think tank, sees a big smaller-government upside to Mr Roberts' Obamacare ruling. "Roberts has just opened a huge new avenue for challenges to administrative rulemaking", Mr Lehmann writes. "From labour laws to environmental standards—not to mentions reams and reams of tax rulings—there's no shortage of federal rules" now open to challenge. Indeed, conservatives and libertarians may soon happily come to rely on the Obamacare ruling in their quest to rein in an unruly executive bureaucracy. If they do so, they'll be conceding, at least implicitly, the model of the division of powers Mr Roberts has so cagily persuaded the court's liberals to sign on to. But this model is manifestly one of the legislature's rule-making supremacy, and the court's secondary, interpretive authority. Congress legislates. The executive gets to decide what ambiguous legislation means only if the decision doesn't have important economic or political consequences, or if congress has granted that authority. Otherwise, it is up the court to settle what the law says.

...

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2015, 04:37:37 AM
This was brought to my attention earlier today, and, upon looking up the ISIS flag, it's actually a fair mistake, since the buttplug flag is clearly patterned on it.  Fun stuff. :)

Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2015, 04:37:26 PM
i think it's unfortunate people have criticized the dissenters in this case. the dissenters make a good argument that would be praised if the subject were different (i.e., legalized pedophilia). because the subject is gay marriage, however, they're condemned.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
Jimmy - I'll check again, but from what I recall the Economist is not getting the emphasis quite right.  My recollection was that Roberts denied Chevron deference because the IRS had no special expertise with respect to health care regulation.

Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 07:25:39 AM
I do not really understand the practical need for siblings. They are already next of kin what practical use is marriage for them?

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 01:01:30 AM
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.

Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
you misunderstood my post. i'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2015, 09:06:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2015, 01:09:30 PM

The irony here is that my brother *did* marry a woman who inherited piles of money, truly wealthy - and they use none of it. They live as poor academics - they are both profs at the university of Iowa.   ;)

I imagine you can live a decent upper middle class lifestyle on the salary of two professors.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 27, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
He could have mean that, despite having great wealth, they live very frugal lives.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:10:43 AM
Don't try to be reasonable with this crowd. Doesn't work.  ;)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 09:12:55 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:10:43 AM
Don't try to be reasonable with this crowd. Doesn't work.  ;)

:rolleyes:

QuoteRussian Orthodox Church Spokesman Lashes Out Over U.S. Gay Marriage Ruling

A spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church has called on all those who idolize the American democratic model to take a hard look at themselves after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to legalize same-sex marriage, Interfax reported Sunday.

The United States' highest court ruled Saturday that same-sex marriage should be legalized across the entire country, meaning that the 14 states with bans on gay marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.

But Vsevolod Chaplin, a Russian Orthodox Church spokesman, decried the decision to legalize such a "godless and sinful thing" and warned his compatriots to be wary of the values that the current U.S. leadership is trying to impose on other countries, Interfax reported.

"In reality they want to take away your right to live by faith ... to take away the possibility of building the life of your society and your state based on the eternal and unchanging moral laws dictated by God," the priest was quoted as saying.

Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, but a law passed in June 2013 bans the promotion of "nontraditional" sexual relations to minors. A survey by independent pollster Levada Center last month found 37 percent of Russians think homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, Facebook created an application that allows users to cover their profile pictures with a transparent filter in the colors of the LGBT rainbow flag. Rishat Shigapov, a Facebook user who heads a digital marketing agency, responded to the rainbow-flag app by creating a separate program allowing users to cover their profile photos with the colors of the Russian flag. Revealing his new tricolor profile photo, Shigapov wrote on his Facebook page: "I'm Russian and I'm proud."

The Facebook app likewise provoked the wrath of conservative politician Vitaly Milonov, a deputy in St. Petersburg's legislative assembly.

Milonov, an architect of Russia's "gay propaganda" law, told the Russian News Service on Saturday that he had asked the country's media watchdog to block Facebook because the application was in "flagrant violation" of the country's law given that the social media site has no age limit.

The reaction to the Supreme Court's decision has not been entirely negative in Russia. Senator Konstantin Dobrynin, deputy head of the Federation Council's constitutional law committee, used the ruling to urge his country to adopt a more balanced approach in its own dealings with the LGBT community.

"It is important not to turn away from the present-day realities and not to lapse into the same old battle against homosexuals, but to try to find a legal way of ensuring a public balance between the conservative section of society and everyone else on this subject," Dobrynin was quoted as saying.

The senator has spoken out on the topic of LGBT rights before, telling newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets in September 2013 that he was tired of Russia's preoccupation with anti-gay lawmaking — though he did not vote against a draft law banning gay propaganda to minors. The bill was passed by 137 votes, with one abstention.

Dobrynin also suggested to Interfax on Sunday that the introduction of a law based upon the principles of "don't ask, don't tell" could help the country move toward a greater acceptance of the LGBT community by giving gay Russians greater privacy in their personal lives.

The Kremlin has yet to publicly comment on the decision of the United States to legalize gay marriage.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:20:00 AM
Yeah, because given a choice between the reasonable thing I actually meant, and bullshit that supports a popular Languish meme, you lot will choose bullshit every time.  So predictable.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2015, 05:03:45 AM
Is this accurate?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/obamacare-and-gay-marriage

Quote...What's interesting, and so far under-appreciated about Mr Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case, is that the court explicitly denies that the executive branch had the authority to resolve the ambiguities in the text of the Affordable Care Act. Many commentators predicted that the case would be decided on a principle known as "Chevron deference", first articulated in Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council, which states that the court should defer to the executive branch's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, so long as it is reasonable. But some on the court, Mr Roberts included, don't much care for the Chevron principle. It weakens the power of judicial review, the court's authority "to say what the law is", as first set forth in Marbury v Madison, which Mr Roberts duly mentions in his ruling. Now, in cases of large "economic and political significance", the Chevron principle does not apply. The court had not fully embraced this limit on the executive branch's authority to interpret the meaning of legislation until now, in the Obamacare decision. Although the court happens to agree with the IRS's interpretation of the statute, Mr Roberts' ruling goes to some pains to say that, because the IRS had not been specifically empowered by the legislature to make this sort of economically and politically significant determination, it did not have the authority to do so. The court need not defer to the use of authority the executive branch doesn't have.

This is a very important development. The court has ruled that when the interpretation of ambiguous legislation has potentially profound consequences, and congress didn't delegate interpretative authority to a specific administrative agency, it is the court's job, not the executive's, to decide what the law says. "It is...the Court's task", Mr Roberts wrote, "to determine the correct reading" of an unclear law. Which is a nice way of telling the executive branch to take Chevron deference and stuff it.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, calls Mr Roberts opinion "a masterwork of indirection". Mr Sunstein, who had a hand in the executive branch's interpretation of the Obamacare as the former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, says that although the decision may vindicate the president's pet programme, "it is also a strong assertion of the court's, and not the executive branch's, ultimate power to say what the law is".

R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at R Street, a free-market think tank, sees a big smaller-government upside to Mr Roberts' Obamacare ruling. "Roberts has just opened a huge new avenue for challenges to administrative rulemaking", Mr Lehmann writes. "From labour laws to environmental standards—not to mentions reams and reams of tax rulings—there's no shortage of federal rules" now open to challenge. Indeed, conservatives and libertarians may soon happily come to rely on the Obamacare ruling in their quest to rein in an unruly executive bureaucracy. If they do so, they'll be conceding, at least implicitly, the model of the division of powers Mr Roberts has so cagily persuaded the court's liberals to sign on to. But this model is manifestly one of the legislature's rule-making supremacy, and the court's secondary, interpretive authority. Congress legislates. The executive gets to decide what ambiguous legislation means only if the decision doesn't have important economic or political consequences, or if congress has granted that authority. Otherwise, it is up the court to settle what the law says.

...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 10:28:29 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:20:00 AM
Yeah, because given a choice between the reasonable thing I actually meant, and bullshit that supports a popular Languish meme, you lot will choose bullshit every time.  So predictable.

:lol:

If you meant to say that although they have a huge trust fund they are choosing to live on two adjunct professor salaries, you did a poor job of expressing it.  That you meant two full professors salaries renders a couple poor was a reasonable interpretation, not "choosing bullshit."

Which still leaves the question of whether or not two adjunct professor salaries renders a couple poor.  I do know adjuncts at the local community college get absolutely nothing, but I would expect the university to pay more.  My guess is they're making around 60-70 combined. 

Then on top of that you decided to pull in as support for your position Tonitrus' interpretation that you merely meant that they were living frugally.  However, if this were the case then their occupation would have been irrelevant.  One can live frugally on an investment banker's salary, or a professional athlete's salary.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 10:40:23 AM
Well, you *could* have noted that when I mentioned that they were living as "poor academics", I meant they weren't "full professors". One *would* think that the one sorta implies the other, no?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 10:42:20 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 10:40:23 AM
Well, you *could* have noted that when I mentioned that they were living as "poor academics", I meant they weren't "full professors". One *would* think that the one sorta implies the other, no?

No.  I just said that.

QuoteThat you meant two full professors salaries renders a couple poor was a reasonable interpretation, ...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 10:47:47 AM
??

The quoted passage is pretty much the opposite of what you said.

You: The reasonable interpretation is I didn't mean full professors.

Me: A reasonable interpretation is you meant full professors.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 10:49:45 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 10:47:47 AM
??

The quoted passage is pretty much the opposite of what you said.

You: The reasonable interpretation is I didn't mean full professors.

Me: A reasonable interpretation is you meant full professors.

My mistake: I thought you meant you just said what I said.

How is it reasonable to assume I meant something absurd where there exists an explaination that isn't absurd?

Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2015, 10:47:31 AM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 10:53:11 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 10:49:45 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 10:47:47 AM
??

The quoted passage is pretty much the opposite of what you said.

You: The reasonable interpretation is I didn't mean full professors.

Me: A reasonable interpretation is you meant full professors.

My mistake: I thought you meant you just said what I said.

How is it reasonable to assume I meant something absurd where there exists an explaination that isn't absurd?

Because you have already taken the position that growing up in a household where your father was a tenured professor meant you were poor.  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
Malthus, you are acting a bit irrational here.  Going back and reading what you posted do you honestly believe that everyone else is out to get you with an unreasonable interpretation?

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:03:03 AM
No, I think that *some* of you - including you - are surfing a funny Languish meme.  :huh:

I know, I know, such a thing can never happen here.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:03:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
Malthus, you are acting a bit irrational here.  Going back and reading what you posted do you honestly believe that everyone else is out to get you with an unreasonable interpretation?

No, I think that *some* of you - including you - are surfing a funny Languish meme.  :huh:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:08:25 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:03:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
Malthus, you are acting a bit irrational here.  Going back and reading what you posted do you honestly believe that everyone else is out to get you with an unreasonable interpretation?

No, I think that *some* of you - including you - are surfing a funny Languish meme.  :huh:

And you are as overly sensitive about this as ever.  Protesting overly much?  :P

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:13:20 AM
That's how these memes work. If you point out that the interpretation is wrong, you are "oversensitive" or "protesting too much", with whatever that implies. If you don't, then you are simply accepting it as true.  :lol:

On the flipside - you guys have insisted that your interpretaion was true, but also, that pointing out that it isn't is "overreacting" to the joke.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
But Malthus the point is it is perfectly reasonable to interpret what you said as meaning that academics are poor.   Even without your well earned Meme. ;)

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:21:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
But Malthus the point is it is perfectly reasonable to interpret what you said as meaning that academics are poor.   Even without your well earned Meme. ;)

See, if I debate this point - which I don't agree with, BTW - I'm further "overreacting". Or perhaps "protesting too much". Right? 

Interesting. :hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:22:33 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:21:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
But Malthus the point is it is perfectly reasonable to interpret what you said as meaning that academics are poor.   Even without your well earned Meme. ;)

See, if I debate this point - which I don't agree with, BTW - I'm further "overreacting". Or perhaps "protesting too much". Right? 

Interesting. :hmm:

:lol:

You can tell us all you want what you really meant.  But to suggest that your words could not have been reasonably interpreted in another way is just silly.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:17:26 AM
The fact that you're spinning *that* aspect of it doesn't help your case IMO.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:25:53 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:22:33 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:21:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
But Malthus the point is it is perfectly reasonable to interpret what you said as meaning that academics are poor.   Even without your well earned Meme. ;)

See, if I debate this point - which I don't agree with, BTW - I'm further "overreacting". Or perhaps "protesting too much". Right? 

Interesting. :hmm:

:lol:

You can tell us all you want what you really meant.  But to suggest that your words could not have been reasonably interpreted in another way is just silly.

You really do want to debate this, don't you.  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:29:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

I see.  So "don't try to be reasonable with this crowd" was your effort at clarifying.  :lol:

Maybe time to push the reset button Malthus.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:29:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

I see.  So "don't try to be reasonable with this crowd" was your effort at clarifying.  :lol:

Maybe time to push the reset button Malthus.

Uh no. Read thread again. My first effort at clarifying was above that, in a perfectly polite response to Jimmy.

Better luck next time.  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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"?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:34:25 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:29:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

I see.  So "don't try to be reasonable with this crowd" was your effort at clarifying.  :lol:

Maybe time to push the reset button Malthus.

Uh no. Read thread again. My first effort at clarifying was above that, in a perfectly polite response to Jimmy.

Better luck next time.  :)

:lol:

Lol, so you attack mere seconds after you clarify your comment and say that others are being unreasonable.

Really, step back and look at this bit more dispassionately.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:46:20 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:34:25 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:29:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

I see.  So "don't try to be reasonable with this crowd" was your effort at clarifying.  :lol:

Maybe time to push the reset button Malthus.

Uh no. Read thread again. My first effort at clarifying was above that, in a perfectly polite response to Jimmy.

Better luck next time.  :)

:lol:

Lol, so you attack mere seconds after you clarify your comment and say that others are being unreasonable.

Really, step back and look at this bit more dispassionately.

You call that an "attack"?

Now who is "overreacting"?  :lol:

QuoteDon't try to be reasonable with this crowd. Doesn't work.  ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:45:34 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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"?

Ok, so you have just confirmed the meme.   :lol:    Even if these two were teaching on contract they are not "poor".  If you think they are then you really are out of touch with what it is to be poor.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:53:41 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:45:34 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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"?

Ok, so you have just confirmed the meme.   :lol:    Even if these two were teaching on contract they are not "poor".  If you think they are then you really are out of touch with what it is to be poor.

They aren't living in poverty, no. The point I was making was that they were living on contract academic salaries compared to living on inherited riches, not that they were living on food stamps.

Which, again, I would have thought was sorta obvious. Particularly *after* I explained it, which explaination I know you just read.

This sorta contradicts the whole "you are allowed to explain what you meant and, of course, no-one would continue to take it the wrong way" theme you and Yi have put forward.

But again, no doubt debating this thing (at your express request) is yet more 'protesting too much'.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:47:51 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:46:20 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:34:25 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 11:29:36 AM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

I pissed at you for using the dismissive " rolleyes " at me, nothing more. You threw it down first.

I see.  So "don't try to be reasonable with this crowd" was your effort at clarifying.  :lol:

Maybe time to push the reset button Malthus.

Uh no. Read thread again. My first effort at clarifying was above that, in a perfectly polite response to Jimmy.

Better luck next time.  :)

:lol:

Lol, so you attack mere seconds after you clarify your comment and say that others are being unreasonable.

Really, step back and look at this bit more dispassionately.

You call that an "attack"?

Now who is "overreacting"?  :lol:

:huh:

Ok, now you are going to have to parse what you meant by this statement.

QuoteDon't try to be reasonable with this crowd. Doesn't work.  ;)

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 11:57:51 AM
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.  :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 11:57:51 AM
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.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 10:55:33 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2015, 10:47:31 AM
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.  :huh:

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
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 :P

Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
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 :P

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

Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
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 :P

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

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 12:20:34 PM
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. :P

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 29, 2015, 12:40:46 PM
Kind of ironic that Malthus is complaining about a meme after he chased Seedy away with all those chained up hooker accusations.  :P

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 01:01:30 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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"?

Quote from: LaCroix on June 29, 2015, 06:41:30 PMniggling

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:26:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 12:20:34 PM
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. :P

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

Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
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 :P

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

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 11:42:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:26:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 12:20:34 PM
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. :P

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.

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 11:42:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 12:26:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 12:20:34 PM
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. :P

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.

Quote from: LaCroix on June 29, 2015, 06:26:34 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 29, 2015, 01:01:30 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
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  :lol:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2015, 06:39:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2015, 11:31:41 AM

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

Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2015, 08:20:50 AM
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".

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2015, 08:34:03 AM
If you put all joking aside for one moment, I would say that Malthus probably knows more about poverty than anyone else here.  He and his colleagues regularly debate its causes during social events.

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:07:40 AM
I see that the USSC also ruled on climate law and the death penalty. What's with the flurry rulings these past few days? Is it how the court normally works?

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
Or as Ted Cruz put it - "The darkest 24 hours in our nations history".

:lmfao:

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
Or as Ted Cruz put it - "The darkest 24 hours in our nations history".

:lmfao:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 30, 2015, 09:31:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
Or as Ted Cruz put it - "The darkest 24 hours in our nations history".

:lmfao:

Gays being able to marry is darker than, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, the stock market crashes, the start of the civil war, etc?  :blink:

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
Or as Ted Cruz put it - "The darkest 24 hours in our nations history".

:lmfao:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 30, 2015, 09:31:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2015, 09:28:10 AM
Or as Ted Cruz put it - "The darkest 24 hours in our nations history".

:lmfao:

Gays being able to marry is darker than, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, the stock market crashes, the start of the civil war, etc?  :blink:

Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 09:35:40 AM
It is so stupid I have a hard time believing he really said that or if it was different in context. That is stupid even for him.

Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 09:35:40 AM
It is so stupid I have a hard time believing he really said that or if it was different in context. That is stupid even for him.

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2015, 09:40:28 AM
To be fair, Berkut did crop the quote in a way that is marginal at best.  The real quote is:  "Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history."  Stupid, yes, but regular GOP stupid.

Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2015, 09:42:01 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2015, 09:40:28 AM
To be fair, Berkut did crop the quote in a way that is marginal at best.  The real quote is:  "Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history."  Stupid, yes, but regular GOP stupid.

Alright that makes sense.

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
It actually doesn't, though.

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
It actually doesn't, though.

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
It actually doesn't, though.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2015, 09:48:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:42:58 AM
It actually doesn't, though.

No it doesn't.

Maybe "the past 24 hours are among the worst 24 hours in American history."

But then again he's Canadian so you have to cut him slack.

Quote from: Warspite on June 30, 2015, 09:47:13 AM
In the histories to come, we will trace the destruction of the US to the fateful decision of the George W Bush administration to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, rather than The Gays.

Quote from: celedhring on June 30, 2015, 09:57:26 AM
That's what I meant, English isn't my first language but that grammar looked really off.

Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2015, 08:13:13 AM
*Necessary CC disclaimer

QuoteThis pastor didn't literally mean he would set himself on fire over gay marriage

A Texas pastor has clarified comments he made ahead of the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage to say he didn't mean he would literally set himself on fire.
Texas pastor Rick Scarborough made the claim ahead of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage which will bring the right to all gay and lesbian couples in the US.
One-upping the Australian Christian couple who have threatened to divorce if the ban on same-sex marriage is lifted, the Texan appeared to threaten to burn himself alive.
He said: "We're simply being pre-emptive and saying, no matter what the cost, we are not going to bow, we are not going to bend, and we will burn."
Scarborough has now clarified, however, saying in a statement: "I made that comment to paraphrase a spiritual song, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in which the three were given a choice—to bow to the image of Nebucahdnezzar or burn in a furnace.
"'We will burn' means that we will accept any sanction from the government for resisting today's Supreme Court decision. We do not support any violence or physical harm."

Quote from: The Brain on July 01, 2015, 03:18:31 AM
Can gay couples sue the States that illegally stopped them from getting married?

Quote from: Martinus on July 01, 2015, 03:50:12 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 01, 2015, 03:18:31 AM
Can gay couples sue the States that illegally stopped them from getting married?

Well, they just did - the SCOTUS ruling is a result of such lawsuits. I don't think US law allows a plaintiff to claim damages from the state over loss suffered as a result of an unconstitutional law being enforced, though (which makes it quite unique compared to many Western democracies).

Quote from: Martinus on July 01, 2015, 09:51:14 AM
I guess they should be able to sue now, though, if a clerk refuses to issue a marriage license, the way some assholes in Texas or Alabama say they will.

Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2015, 08:20:50 AM
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".

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2015, 09:41:57 AM
States have sovereign immunity, so they can only be sued for money if they consent or a federal law specifically authorizes it.  There is a federal law (section 1983) that permits a person to sue if a state official violates their civil rights under color of state law (i.e. acting in an official capacity), but it has to be a clearly established right.   So a suit based on conduct pre King v. Burwell might fail because the right wasn't clearly established.

Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2015, 09:53:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2015, 08:20:50 AM
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".

Can you give me an example of where I have done any of these things?  I'm not seeing it, but if it is so common, you surely can provide an example.  If you can't, it will be pretty clear that you are just trying to add to the already-poisonous atmosphere here, perhaps because of "some form of psychosis or mental deficiency," as you so politely put it.

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2015, 10:02:28 AM

Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2015, 09:53:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2015, 08:20:50 AM
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".

Can you give me an example of where I have done any of these things?  I'm not seeing it, but if it is so common, you surely can provide an example.  If you can't, it will be pretty clear that you are just trying to add to the already-poisonous atmosphere here, perhaps because of "some form of psychosis or mental deficiency," as you so politely put it.

To be fair, it's an unwinnable proposition for him.  If he find some past debate where you misinterpret his point, you can just go back and say that he's backtracking and is now claiming that he meant something different than what he meant originally.

Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2015, 11:06:19 AM
To be fair, he can either provide examples where he thinks I did any of those things, or he can't.  What I say about his examples doesn't make him win or lose.  He'll just be providing examples, and people can judge whether or not his personal attack was justified based on the examples.

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2015, 11:06:59 AM
Glad to see you posting grumbles. I get a little worried when people vanish for a bit after the Seedy thing.

Quote from: Martinus on July 01, 2015, 09:54:05 AM
Damn, I was hoping Obama would send in the National Guard. :P

Btw, I have been seriously considering moving to Oregon for the last two months. And they just legalised recreational marijuana.  :ph34r:

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2015, 11:10:08 AM
I think most people can already judge on their own.  It's not like Languish is full of newcomers, we're all very familiar with each other's debating styles.

Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2015, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 01, 2015, 09:54:05 AM
Damn, I was hoping Obama would send in the National Guard. :P

Btw, I have been seriously considering moving to Oregon for the last two months. And they just legalised recreational marijuana.  :ph34r:

Do take note that most of Oregon is not Portland.

Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2015, 11:20:24 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2015, 11:06:59 AM
Glad to see you posting grumbles. I get a little worried when people vanish for a bit after the Seedy thing.

I still visit, but don't post much here any more, for reasons that are probably pretty clear:  its so toxic here sometimes that we drive away posters, both new and old.  I still enjoy reading most of the threads, though, so I am not going anywhere.

Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2015, 12:25:56 PM
Do take note that most of Oregon is not Portland.

Quote from: viper37 on July 01, 2015, 10:41:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2015, 12:25:56 PM
Do take note that most of Oregon is not Portland.

wouldn't that apply to just about any major cities, being different than the countryside?  Is New York city just about the same as everywhere else in New York State?  Are Houston and Dallas very similar to the rest of Texas? :)

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 05:14:18 AM
He'd probably be fine in Austin.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 06:00:38 AM
I haven't realised before that Massachussets looks like a Schnauzer dog with a huge snout.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 06:00:38 AM
I haven't realised before that Massachussets looks like a Schnauzer dog with a huge snout.

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2015, 05:19:09 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 05:14:18 AM
He'd probably be fine in Austin.

Well the point I was making on Portland, and then yeah probably would be same with Austin, is that sure you have your little great enclave but then you are stuck in the midst of your wider state...:D

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 06:00:38 AM
I haven't realised before that Massachussets looks like a Schnauzer dog with a huge snout.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 07:44:11 AM
Is Corvallis where Hood is?

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2015, 05:10:49 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/California_presidential_election_results_2012.svg/335px-California_presidential_election_results_2012.svg.png)

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:47:26 AM
You mean the Mountain? No Corvallis is just south of Portland.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 07:44:11 AM
Is Corvallis where Hood is?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 07:50:34 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:47:26 AM
You mean the Mountain? No Corvallis is just south of Portland.

The college.  I knew a transfer from Hood at GU, he made it sound like the 2nd hippiest school in America.

He transferred back after a year.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 07:53:00 AM
Also for the record (as someone said the U.S. do not need more lawyers) if I decided to make such a move it would be more along the lines of taking my savings and starting something much more low profile, such as bed and breakfast.

You can begin making Fawlty Towers puns. :P

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:52:41 AM
Oh. Never heard of a Hood College in Oregon.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 07:53:37 AM
Also Fireblade is trying to convince me to move to Eureka Springs, AK instead.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:48:50 AM
Wow I had no idea the counties down by Arizona all went for Obama. That surprises me.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:48:50 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2015, 05:10:49 AM

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/California_presidential_election_results_2012.svg/335px-California_presidential_election_results_2012.svg.png)

Wow I had no idea the counties down by Arizona all went for Obama. That surprises me.

Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2015, 11:20:24 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2015, 11:06:59 AM
Glad to see you posting grumbles. I get a little worried when people vanish for a bit after the Seedy thing.

I still visit, but don't post much here any more, for reasons that are probably pretty clear:  its so toxic here sometimes that we drive away posters, both new and old.  I still enjoy reading most of the threads, though, so I am not going anywhere.

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2015, 07:56:08 AM
I give it 5 months before Mart gets lynched in the States.

Quote

Actor and gay rights advocate George Takei is slamming Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after his dissent to last week's decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide claimed that the government can neither give nor take away human dignity.

"He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry," the former "Star Trek" star said in an interview with Fox 10 this week in Phoenix, standing alongside his longtime partner and husband.

"For him to say slaves had dignity ... I mean, doesn't he know slaves were chained? That they were whipped on the back?" Takei asked.

Dissenting in the 5-4 Supreme Court same-sex marriage case, Thomas, an African-American, reflected on the origins of human dignity within society, invoking the belief that humans have God-given "inherent worth."

"That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved," Thomas wrote.

"Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them," Thomas wrote. "And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."

Takei responded to Thomas' remarks in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, reflecting in an MSNBC op-ed on his time in a Japanese-American internment camp as a young boy.

"I was only a child when soldiers with bayonetted rifles marched up our driveway in Los Angeles, banged on our door, and ordered us out," Takei wrote.

"I remember my mothers' tears as we gathered what little we could carry, and then were sent to live for many weeks in a single cramped horse stall at the Santa Anita racetracks."

Takei reflected on his family's assets being frozen and their family being shipped by railcar a few months later to Arkansas where they "slept inside bug-infested barracks, ate in a noisy mess hall, and relieved ourselves in common latrines that had no walls between the stalls."

"To say that the government does not bestow or grant dignity does not mean it cannot succeed in stripping it away through the imposition of unequal laws and deprivation of due process. At the very least, the government must treat all its subjects with equal human dignity," he wrote.

In the Fox 10 interview, Takei also mentioned rape scenes from the movie "12 Years a Slave."

"And he says they had dignity as slaves?" Takei asked.

"My parents lost everything that they worked for in the middle of their lives in their thirties. My father's business, our home, our freedom. And we're supposed to call that dignified?" Takei continued.

"This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrasment. He is a disgrace to America."

Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2015, 07:01:45 AM
I routinely trust an actor over a supreme court justice on legal matters.

Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2015, 07:44:51 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2015, 07:01:45 AM
I routinely trust an actor over a supreme court justice on legal matters.

It is not really a legal matter, though.

Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2015, 07:44:51 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2015, 07:01:45 AM
I routinely trust an actor over a supreme court justice on legal matters.

It is not really a legal matter, though.

QuoteScarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings As most public men are or have been legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habit to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate. The lawyers of the United States form a party which is but little feared and scarcely perceived, which has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts itself with great flexibility to the exigencies of the time and accommodates itself without resistance to all the movements of the social body.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
And what is it that you think Scalia was right about?

Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2015, 10:36:36 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
And what is it that you think Scalia was right about?

Well, that the principle adopted by the majority in the gay marriage ruling quite clearly can be used to allow polygamy.

Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2015, 11:34:28 AM
Ok. How about incest then?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

But we have this discussion all the time. Why only in this instance do we suddenly care about power imbalances? There are lots of power imbalances inherent in many to most relationships and we don't prohibit those.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:52:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

But we have this discussion all the time. Why only in this instance do we suddenly care about power imbalances? There are lots of power imbalances inherent in many to most relationships and we don't prohibit those.

Yes, and I never quite understand this argument whenever it is raised.  The law does address lots of other power imbalances as well.

Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2015, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:52:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

But we have this discussion all the time. Why only in this instance do we suddenly care about power imbalances? There are lots of power imbalances inherent in many to most relationships and we don't prohibit those.

Yes, and I never quite understand this argument whenever it is raised.  The law does address lots of other power imbalances as well.

Way I think of it is this: for incest, by far the more common examples of it are exploitive in a bad way. It is possible for it to be non-exploitive, but that usually requires some really convoluted fact situation (say a brother and a sister were seperated at birth and ...  that sort of thing). Like statutory rape, it's a case where the presumption of exploitation is pretty strong, but obviously there are always going to be exceptions. The issue is whether public policy favours a hard and fast rule, or would allow a court leeway to make those exceptions - I'm usually in favour of allowing courts discretion in cases like this.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 01:09:26 PM
Where there is knowledge of the relationship I don't know how one avoids the power imbalance/exploitation problem.

Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2015, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:52:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

But we have this discussion all the time. Why only in this instance do we suddenly care about power imbalances? There are lots of power imbalances inherent in many to most relationships and we don't prohibit those.

Yes, and I never quite understand this argument whenever it is raised.  The law does address lots of other power imbalances as well.

Way I think of it is this: for incest, by far the more common examples of it are exploitive in a bad way. It is possible for it to be non-exploitive, but that usually requires some really convoluted fact situation (say a brother and a sister were seperated at birth and ...  that sort of thing). Like statutory rape, it's a case where the presumption of exploitation is pretty strong, but obviously there are always going to be exceptions. The issue is whether public policy favours a hard and fast rule, or would allow a court leeway to make those exceptions - I'm usually in favour of allowing courts discretion in cases like this.

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 02:05:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2015, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:52:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 11:40:15 AM
There is a very good public policy argument to make that incestual relationships have significant power imbalances.

But we have this discussion all the time. Why only in this instance do we suddenly care about power imbalances? There are lots of power imbalances inherent in many to most relationships and we don't prohibit those.

Yes, and I never quite understand this argument whenever it is raised.  The law does address lots of other power imbalances as well.

Way I think of it is this: for incest, by far the more common examples of it are exploitive in a bad way. It is possible for it to be non-exploitive, but that usually requires some really convoluted fact situation (say a brother and a sister were seperated at birth and ...  that sort of thing). Like statutory rape, it's a case where the presumption of exploitation is pretty strong, but obviously there are always going to be exceptions. The issue is whether public policy favours a hard and fast rule, or would allow a court leeway to make those exceptions - I'm usually in favour of allowing courts discretion in cases like this.

To me the issue at hand is the exploitation, not the relationship on its own. I suppose it is easier to spot the relationship than watch for exploitation...

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 02:01:47 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 01:09:26 PM
Where there is knowledge of the relationship I don't know how one avoids the power imbalance/exploitation problem.

I'd question the same on much of Western history where the man was the breadwinner, property owern, man of his castle, etc.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 03:09:18 PM
Yeah, I think it is that exactly.  Certain relationships are more likely to be exploitative.  Hence laws regarding stat rape and incest.

Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2015, 12:22:50 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 03:09:18 PM
Yeah, I think it is that exactly.  Certain relationships are more likely to be exploitative.  Hence laws regarding stat rape and incest.

Err, statutory rape laws are not there because a relationship is "likely to be exploitative" - it's because there is a consensus that a minor cannot give an informed consent, period.

And I think laws against incest are also not primarily based on "likelihood of exploitation" either - it seems to me this is an argument coined hastily by opponents of legalising incest after they began to realise that the other arguments that have been used throughout centuries (it is unnatural and it leads to genetic defects) are no longer sustainable.

Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2015, 08:13:35 PM
At least two county clerks in Kentucky are refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  :mad:

FYI these two counties are in hick parts of the state and nowhere near me.  The county clerks in the counties I live and work in are complying with the law. :)

Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2015, 08:18:59 PM
Correct.  I watched one video and the fucking redneck clerk was like "IT'S A VIERLATION OF MAH BELIEFS TEW HAVE TEW COMPLAH WITH THIS RULIN"

He then went on to misquote Bible verse.  Repeatedly.  :bleeding:

Quote from: Monoriu on July 09, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
He wants to act on his personal beliefs, he joins whatever church he wants to join and takes another job as a priest or something.  I hope he is fired on the spot. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 10:33:49 AM

Regarding your second point.  Are you really going to try to argue that the concern over exploitation in an incestuous relationship isn't valid?

Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2015, 08:13:35 PM
At least two county clerks in Kentucky are refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  :mad:

FYI these two counties are in hick parts of the state and nowhere near me.  The county clerks in the counties I live and work in are complying with the law. :)

Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2015, 10:07:45 PM
Their holdout was as successful as their namesake's tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee.

QuoteKentucky Gov. to Defiant Clerk: License Same-Sex Marriages or Resign
Clerk Casey Davis says his Christian beliefs won't allow him to serve same-sex couples, but Gov. Steve Beshear says he must do his job.
BY TRUDY RING
JULY 09 2015 3:43 PM ET

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has told a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples that he should serve all qualified couples or give up his job — but the clerk remains defiant.

Beshear gave that message to Casey County Clerk Casey Davis in a private meeting today, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports. Davis, who claims his Christian beliefs won't allow him to license same-sex marriages, had requested the meeting with the governor earlier this week.

"I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages," said a statement released by the governor. "However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution. According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place."

Davis, however, told reporters at the capitol that his position hasn't changed. He won't issue licenses to same-sex couples, and he also won't resign. He recognizes that he could be sued or charged with official misconduct, but said, "I'm going to trust in the Lord with all my heart." He had suggested earlier that the state relieve county clerks of the duty of issuing marriage licenses by setting up an online system, but some legal experts pointed out that would make it difficult to verify some information concerning couples' eligibility to marry.

Beshear also said he won't call a special session of the legislature to deal with marriage equality, as some clerks, lawmakers, and right-wing activists had urged him to do. Such a session would be a waste of taxpayer money, he said. All but two or three county clerks in Kentucky are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, he noted, adding, "The courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest."

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has shut down all marriage operations because of her opposition to same-sex unions, and she is facing a lawsuit brought by four couples through the American Civil Liberties Union's Kentucky affiliate. A gay couple denied a license at her office Monday recorded video of the encounter, which has since gone viral, with more than 1.2 million views on YouTube at press time.

Quote from: Lettow77 on July 10, 2015, 02:29:32 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2015, 10:07:45 PM
Their holdout was as successful as their namesake's tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee.

.   :lol: :thumbsup:

Quote from: dps on July 09, 2015, 10:33:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 10:33:49 AM

Regarding your second point.  Are you really going to try to argue that the concern over exploitation in an incestuous relationship isn't valid?

I think that his argument was that it's a post hoc justification for laws against incest (and, FWIW, I think that he's right on that point).  That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a valid concern.

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 02:13:22 AM
I understand that now there is a clear SCOTUS ruling, gay couples in situation like this could sue the state for damage. Is this right?

QuoteACLU Of Kentucky Files Class Action Suit Against Rowan County And Its Clerk

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Rowan County couples, two same-gender couples and two opposite-gender couples, denied marriage licenses by County Clerk Kim Davis, a press release from the ACLU confirms.

Davis is standing firm on her decision to stop issuing marriage licenses, despite dozens of protesters who gathered outside the courthouse.

"My conscience will not allow me to issue a license for a same sex couple," says Kim Davis, "because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

In explaining the ACLU's decision to file suit on the couples' behalf, ACLU of Kentucky Cooperating Attorney Laura Landenwich stated, "Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs."

The couples named in the suit are April Miller & Karen Roberts, Shantel Burke & Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez & Kevin Holloway, and L. Aaron Skaggs & Barry W. Spartman.

In explaining why obtaining a marriage license in Rowan County, as opposed to a neighboring county is important, Plaintiff Aaron Skaggs stated, "We have been citizens of Rowan County since the beginning of our relationship and love being members of this community.   So, it only makes sense that we would want and should be granted our right to be recognized as a loving couple having freedom to marry here at home."

Davis says she decided to oppose the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage after prayer and fasting. She says anyone who wants to get a marriage license must do so in another county. The Lawrence County Clerk, though, tells LEX 18 that he's backing down and will now issue same sex marriage licenses.

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Little remembered fact.  Adam and Eve were never married.

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 09:50:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Little remembered fact.  Adam and Eve were never married.

And who did their kids marry?  :hmm:

Not sure this clerk wants folks to follow *their* example ... [checks location of clerk] ... oh, never mind.  ;)

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2015, 09:55:00 AM
So has she issued licenses adulterers, divorcees, thieves, etc.? Or was that A-OK in her book?

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 09:50:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Little remembered fact.  Adam and Eve were never married.

And who did their kids marry?  :hmm:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 10:00:58 AM
The girls married the "sons of God" and gave birth to Nephilim.  Of course.

Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2015, 09:56:42 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2015, 09:55:00 AM
So has she issued licenses adulterers, divorcees, thieves, etc.? Or was that A-OK in her book?

Sure. She is a Christian and thus filled with forgiveness and stuff.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 10:00:58 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 09:50:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Little remembered fact.  Adam and Eve were never married.

And who did their kids marry?  :hmm:

The girls married the "sons of God" and gave birth to Nephilim.  Of course.

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 10:11:01 AM
Divine beings may be rather thin on the ground in Kentucky, though.  :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2015, 10:06:18 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2015, 09:56:42 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2015, 09:55:00 AM
So has she issued licenses adulterers, divorcees, thieves, etc.? Or was that A-OK in her book?

Sure. She is a Christian and thus filled with forgiveness and stuff.

None of them are evil sinful gays. :yes:

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 10:11:01 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 10:00:58 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2015, 09:50:37 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote"because I know that God ordained marriage from the very foundation of this world to be between a man and a woman."

Little remembered fact.  Adam and Eve were never married.

And who did their kids marry?  :hmm:

The girls married the "sons of God" and gave birth to Nephilim.  Of course.

Divine beings may be rather thin on the ground in Kentucky, though.  :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2015, 09:15:01 AM

QuoteKentucky Gov. to Defiant Clerk: License Same-Sex Marriages or Resign
Clerk Casey Davis says his Christian beliefs won't allow him to serve same-sex couples, but Gov. Steve Beshear says he must do his job.
BY TRUDY RING
JULY 09 2015 3:43 PM ET

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has told a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples that he should serve all qualified couples or give up his job — but the clerk remains defiant.

Beshear gave that message to Casey County Clerk Casey Davis in a private meeting today, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports. Davis, who claims his Christian beliefs won't allow him to license same-sex marriages, had requested the meeting with the governor earlier this week.

"I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages," said a statement released by the governor. "However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution. According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place."

Davis, however, told reporters at the capitol that his position hasn't changed. He won't issue licenses to same-sex couples, and he also won't resign. He recognizes that he could be sued or charged with official misconduct, but said, "I'm going to trust in the Lord with all my heart." He had suggested earlier that the state relieve county clerks of the duty of issuing marriage licenses by setting up an online system, but some legal experts pointed out that would make it difficult to verify some information concerning couples' eligibility to marry.

Beshear also said he won't call a special session of the legislature to deal with marriage equality, as some clerks, lawmakers, and right-wing activists had urged him to do. Such a session would be a waste of taxpayer money, he said. All but two or three county clerks in Kentucky are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, he noted, adding, "The courts and the voters will deal appropriately with the rest."

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has shut down all marriage operations because of her opposition to same-sex unions, and she is facing a lawsuit brought by four couples through the American Civil Liberties Union's Kentucky affiliate. A gay couple denied a license at her office Monday recorded video of the encounter, which has since gone viral, with more than 1.2 million views on YouTube at press time.

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2015, 10:19:06 AM
County clerks aren't legislators.  They're elected local officials.  When your locality is a bunch of uneducated Bible-thumpers, it's not uncommon for uneducated Bible-thumpers to be elected. :sleep:

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:37:26 AM
I didn't mean that country clerks are legislators. :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2015, 10:38:16 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Yes, as governor they're responsible for what goes on, while a congressman/state representative can do whatever he wants, secure in his knowledge the President/Governor will get blamed for anything bad that happens.

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 10:48:32 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Imagine that.  People who hold the top political job in their jurisdiction are generally more able.  How does it work in Poland?

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:32:07 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin beg to differ.

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 03:27:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 10:48:32 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I can't help to notice that in the US governors, even in red states, are generally much more sensible and level headed than legislators. Is this a correct observation?

Imagine that.  People who hold the top political job in their jurisdiction are generally more able.  How does it work in Poland?

Well, it's different as the local equivalent of governors (who, incidentally, have much less power as Poland is a unitary country) are administrative appointees and are not elected. I guess I was surprised that despite being elected the US governors are still quite reasonable and do not pander to the base as much as legislators do.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:48:24 PM
Perry declared a statewide rain dance.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:48:24 PM
Perry declared a statewide rain dance.
You can't find crazier than that outside of Raz's basement.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
In any group of legislators you are going to find wing nuts.  The position of Governor is different because they are not being elected from a Gerrymandered district within the State. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2015, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:48:24 PM
Perry declared a statewide rain dance.

And look what happened  :D

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:48:24 PM
Perry declared a statewide rain dance.
You can't find crazier than that outside of Raz's basement.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2015, 03:48:24 PM
Perry declared a statewide rain dance.
You can't find crazier than that outside of Raz's basement.

QuoteTexas is in the grip of historic wildfires that have destroyed nearly 1.8 million acres of forest and grassland in the state as well as 400 homes. The almost 8,000 fires so far this year are unprecedented, which last weekend prompted Gov. Rick Perry to call upon the national government for assistance. Now Perry is calling upon the Man Upstairs for help.

Perry issued a proclamation on Thursday declaring the next 72 hours the "Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas," asking residents to appeal to whatever higher power they prefer for help. It states:

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and robust way of life.

QuoteKentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses

A county clerk has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" — this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her.

On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis remained in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority."

Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold, a couple who has been rejected four times by her office, to leave. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras.

"We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said.

"Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him.

From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground."

Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job."

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to gay couples. A district judge could now hold her in contempt, which can carry steep fines or jail time.

Davis has steadfastly refused to issue the licenses, saying her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience."

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment.

Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2015, 09:45:21 AM
Yahoo!  Another ignorant bigot making Kentucky look bad!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2015, 08:01:29 AM
Oh she is elected. I was wondering why she wasn't fired.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 09:56:37 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2015, 08:01:29 AM
Oh she is elected. I was wondering why she wasn't fired.

Gotta be impeached, but the county prosecutor is contemplating filing charges of contempt and official misconduct, IIRC.

Quote from: Syt on September 01, 2015, 10:19:27 AM
Does someone in her position swear to obey and enact the laws of the United States? If yes, what are the normal consequences if she refuses to do so?

Quote from: Syt on September 01, 2015, 10:19:27 AM
Does someone in her position swear to obey and enact the laws of the United States? If yes, what are the normal consequences if she refuses to do so?

Quote from: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19888522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent
to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person
of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized
exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his
office.
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 187, effective January 1, 1975.

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Must. Consummate. Marriage.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 01:54:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Must. Consummate. Marriage.

Hold your horses there, pal.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: Syt on September 01, 2015, 10:19:27 AM
Does someone in her position swear to obey and enact the laws of the United States? If yes, what are the normal consequences if she refuses to do so?

The oath she took does not include model text about the laws of the United States, but it does require her to "not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of [her] office without favor, affection or partiality..."

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176)

The prosecutors are considering official misconduct charges have charged her with official misconduct, which would carry jail time regardless of whether she gets the felony or misdemeanor flavor: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/08/kim-davis-misconduct/ (http://www.towleroad.com/2015/08/kim-davis-misconduct/)

The applicable text of the charge:

Quote from: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19888522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent
to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person
of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized
exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his
office.
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 187, effective January 1, 1975.

522.030 is the same as 522.020, but a class B, rather than class A, misdemeanor with a lesser sentence- the jury would decide which one to apply.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2015, 03:22:37 PM
Guys - her whole schtick is not to resign so that she can make a spectacle of herself not doing her job.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2015, 03:22:37 PM
Guys - her whole schtick is not to resign so that she can make a spectacle of herself not doing her job.
She's gone Blues Brothers.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2015, 03:28:36 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Wrong species.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 03:32:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2015, 03:28:36 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Wrong species.

Stop projecting your own specist views. :angry:

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 04:42:16 PM
I'm more than just my species!

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 04:50:42 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 04:42:16 PM
I'm more than just my species!

You're thinking of katmai.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 01:54:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2015, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Interracial gay marriage is still illegal, right?

No. You can marry garbon if you want.

Must. Consummate. Marriage.

Hold your horses there, pal.

Quote"Kim Davis was sleeping with her third husband shortly after divorcing her first husband and somehow managed to talk her second husband into adopting the kids she had by the man who would become her third husband... and she's now on to her fourth husband? You need an Excel spread sheet to keep track."

Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2015, 11:57:50 PM
Isn't it funny how people who cheat, divorce and remarry are never facing any sort of opprobrium from the likes of Mike Huckabee, as long as they are straight?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 12:01:58 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2015, 11:57:50 PM
Isn't it funny how people who cheat, divorce and remarry are never facing any sort of opprobrium from the likes of Mike Huckabee, as long as they are straight?

I doubt that's accurate.

Quote from: Martinus on September 01, 2015, 11:57:50 PM
This thread should come with a #trigger warning.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2015, 03:27:22 AM
There is a bit of a difference between being critical of divorce and demanding it be banned.

Quote from: celedhring on September 02, 2015, 03:57:55 AM
Huckabee can easily be against divorce while not wanting it to be banned, he will just tell people not to divorce.

However, if he behaved similarly with gay marriage, that would mean he intrinsically accepts gay people as allright, which he obviously doesn't. He won't tell gay people not to marry, he'll tell gay people to stop being gay, and then marry.

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2015, 06:08:39 AM
Interestingly, the usual mix of jackasses who comment on yahoo news articles seem to be against this woman. One, for not seeming like an actual religious person with all her divorces and children out of wedlock, and two, for not doing her job. Who knew this woman would get yahoo bigots to 'support' the gays.

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2015, 06:08:39 AM
Interestingly, the usual mix of jackasses who comment on yahoo news articles seem to be against this woman. One, for not seeming like an actual religious person with all her divorces and children out of wedlock, and two, for not doing her job. Who knew this woman would get yahoo bigots to 'support' the gays.

Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2015, 03:49:49 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2015, 03:27:22 AM
There is a bit of a difference between being critical of divorce and demanding it be banned.

This difference seems to be lost on Huckabee when it comes to gay marriage, though.

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2015, 06:08:39 AM
Interestingly, the usual mix of jackasses who comment on yahoo news articles seem to be against this woman. One, for not seeming like an actual religious person with all her divorces and children out of wedlock, and two, for not doing her job. Who knew this woman would get yahoo bigots to 'support' the gays.

I just love reading over and over again "FIRE HER!!!!!" as if it could be done. :sleep:

Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:34:08 AM
I know that the US is nuts (in some places) about making every dog-catcher an elected position - but what if, after being elected, they just take the salary and sit at home watching TV?  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:34:08 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2015, 06:08:39 AM
Interestingly, the usual mix of jackasses who comment on yahoo news articles seem to be against this woman. One, for not seeming like an actual religious person with all her divorces and children out of wedlock, and two, for not doing her job. Who knew this woman would get yahoo bigots to 'support' the gays.

I just love reading over and over again "FIRE HER!!!!!" as if it could be done. :sleep:

Is there no mechanism for getting rid of an elected official if they refuse to actually do their jobs?

I know that the US is nuts (in some places) about making every dog-catcher an elected position - but what if, after being elected, they just take the salary and sit at home watching TV?  :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:37:43 AM
Kentucky is really weird about having so many elected local officials, including elected judges. :bleeding:

To give you an even more bizarre example which is kind of in line with your dogcatcher comment, Malthus, another elected position in Kentucky is county jailer.  Every county in Kentucky must have one.  The funny thing is, not every county in Kentucky has a jail. :lol:  The county I used to live in didn't, so basically it had a position that paid ~$40K a year where you literally had nothing to do.  My former lawn guy ran for county jailer and asked me if he could put signs up in my yard.  I told him he could, and then asked him how he planned to be an effective jailer for the county.  He was like "ummmm errrr I'll do whatever is asked of me". :lol:

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:37:43 AM
Kentucky is really weird about having so many elected local officials, including elected judges. :bleeding:

To give you an even more bizarre example which is kind of in line with your dogcatcher comment, Malthus, another elected position in Kentucky is county jailer.  Every county in Kentucky must have one.  The funny thing is, not every county in Kentucky has a jail. :lol:  The county I used to live in didn't, so basically it had a position that paid ~$40K a year where you literally had nothing to do.  My former lawn guy ran for county jailer and asked me if he could put signs up in my yard.  I told him he could, and then asked him how he planned to be an effective jailer for the county.  He was like "ummmm errrr I'll do whatever is asked of me". :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2015, 08:39:48 AM
I get convinced more and more that your system is similar to that of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania at its heyday. What puzzles me is that, generally, as a country you are relatively succesful.

Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:48:07 AM
Awesome.  :lol: Did he get the position?

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:49:47 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2015, 08:48:07 AM
Awesome.  :lol: Did he get the position?

No, he lost by around 300 votes.  We instead chose another random dude to sit around and collect a paycheck for doing almost nothing. :(

Jonathan (the lawn guy) is a county sheriff's deputy now though. :hmm:

Quote from: Caliga on September 02, 2015, 08:48:31 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2015, 08:39:48 AM
I get convinced more and more that your system is similar to that of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania at its heyday. What puzzles me is that, generally, as a country you are relatively succesful.

I don't know shit about Poland-Lithuania's government but the problem here is legal 'lagtime' and the difficulty of changing the Constitution as well as state constitutions (though that varies from state to state, as you might expect).  At one point in time every county in Kentucky did have a jail, but given how much more efficient transportation is nowadays, it's no longer necessary or cost efficient.

Sometimes the Spencer County jailer is asked to transport prisoners to jails in neighboring counties, but crime is so low there's no way that's a 40 hour a week job, or even 4 hour to be honest.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2015, 09:21:27 AM
Am I wrong in not getting a True Blood viewer vibe from Cal?  :hmm:

QuoteKim Davis Ordered Jailed in Kentucky Gay Marriage Dispute

ASHLAND, Ky. — A federal judge here on Thursday ordered a Kentucky clerk jailed for contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, was ordered incarcerated after a hearing here before Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. The contempt finding was another legal defeat for Ms. Davis, who has argued that she should not be forced to issue licenses that conflict with her religious beliefs.

"The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order," Judge Bunning said. "If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Judge Bunning said Ms. Davis would be released once she agreed to comply with his order and issue the marriage licenses.

On Monday, the Supreme Court turned down Ms. Davis's appeal of an Aug. 12 ruling by Judge Bunning directing her to issue marriage licenses. The justices' decision was expected to clear the way for same-sex marriages in Rowan County. But on Tuesday, the clerk and her employees again refused to issue licenses in Morehead, the seat of Rowan County.

Within hours lawyers for the couples who had initially sued Ms. Davis asked Judge Bunning to hold her in contempt. "Because Davis cannot show either that she is unable to comply with the Aug. 12, 2015, order or that she has taken all reasonable steps to comply," the lawyers wrote, "this court is left with no choice but to hold her in contempt."

The lawyers, who argued that Ms. Davis "continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform," asked Judge Bunning to fine the clerk, but not to jail her.

On Wednesday, when Ms. Davis again turned down a gay couple's request for a license, the clerk's lawyers argued that she should not be held in contempt, in part because it would breach her right to due process. They asked Judge Bunning to grant an injunction pending another appeal.

Ms. Davis has said little amid her legal battle, but in a statement her lawyers released on Tuesday, she said she would not change her position.

"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus himself regarding marriage," she said in the statement. "To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a heaven or hell decision."

Supporters and opponents of Ms. Davis gathered outside the federal courthouse here hours before she was due to appear. One man waved a rainbow flag — a symbol of the gay rights movement — while another clutched a flag that said, "Liberty."

"We're supporters of the rule of the law," said David Wills, a computer programmer from West Virginia who was first in line and said he had arrived at 4 a.m. for a hearing scheduled to begin seven hours later. "It's just really important to me that people be treated equally, fairly."

Ms. Davis's supporters, prepared with an ice chest filled with water, also gathered ahead of a hearing they called critical to protecting religious liberty in Kentucky and elsewhere.

"They're taking rights away from Christians," Danny Kinder, a 73-year-old retiree from Morehead, said of the courts. "They've overstepped their bounds."

He declined to predict the outcome of Thursday's hearing and what would happen to Ms. Davis.

"I've been praying about it, and we just have to turn it over to the Lord," he said. "She has got to stand for what she believes, and I have to stand for what I believe, and I'm behind her 100 percent."

Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM
It is just shows how miraculous the Constitutional convention of 1787 was. It could never be repeated.

Quote from: viper37 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM
It is just shows how miraculous the Constitutional convention of 1787 was. It could never be repeated.

if you exclude black, indians and women from participating in the works, it will be significantly easier, just like 1787 ;)

Quote... Judge Bunning said."If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2015, 01:13:08 PM

Quote... Judge Bunning said."If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Uh-oh, the Nuremberg cases just imploded.

Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2015, 12:55:09 PM
So she'll go to jail, and still refuse to comply... and then what?

My wife's cousin is in the National Guard and it would be funny if he was deployed to Rowan County, especially since he's a narrow-minded bigot himself and I'm sure he supports what this crackpot is doing. :lol:

Quote from: The Brain on September 03, 2015, 01:13:08 PM

Quote... Judge Bunning said."If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Uh-oh, the Nuremberg cases just imploded.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2015, 01:00:02 PM

Quote from: viper37 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM
It is just shows how miraculous the Constitutional convention of 1787 was. It could never be repeated.

if you exclude black, indians and women from participating in the works, it will be significantly easier, just like 1787 ;)

Um have you looked at what nutters white guys in this country are today? The blacks, Native Americans, and women are the only thing preventing another ACW.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2015, 01:42:07 PM
What will happen if he refuses to carry out his orders against this crackpot?  Can his officer execute him for insubordination?

QuoteGay-Hating Westboro Church Protests Ky. Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriages
by M. ALEX JOHNSON

In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism, Westboro Baptist — the unaffiliated Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay agenda — is attacking the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of court orders.

Westboro, or WBC, is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims of mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

Referring to Jeremiah 3:20 — the King James version of which reads, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD" — WBC undertook a P.R. campaign over the weekend, attacking the thrice-divorced (and legally remarried) Davis in a string of Tweets and YouTube videos as an "oath breaker" and a "lawbreaker" — meaning, of course, God's law.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization said on Twitter.

As if to clarify how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism,

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2015, 08:28:00 PM

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism,

:huh:

This is pretty clearly the opposite of that.

Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2015, 11:02:37 PM
It so good to see you two united to use your powers for good instead of evil :cry:

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
:lmfao:

QuoteGay-Hating Westboro Church Protests Ky. Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriages
by M. ALEX JOHNSON

In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism, Westboro Baptist — the unaffiliated Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay agenda — is attacking the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of court orders.

Westboro, or WBC, is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims of mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

Referring to Jeremiah 3:20 — the King James version of which reads, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD" — WBC undertook a P.R. campaign over the weekend, attacking the thrice-divorced (and legally remarried) Davis in a string of Tweets and YouTube videos as an "oath breaker" and a "lawbreaker" — meaning, of course, God's law.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization said on Twitter.

As if to clarify how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:00:42 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
:lmfao:

QuoteGay-Hating Westboro Church Protests Ky. Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriages
by M. ALEX JOHNSON

In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism, Westboro Baptist — the unaffiliated Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay agenda — is attacking the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of court orders.

Westboro, or WBC, is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims of mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

Referring to Jeremiah 3:20 — the King James version of which reads, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD" — WBC undertook a P.R. campaign over the weekend, attacking the thrice-divorced (and legally remarried) Davis in a string of Tweets and YouTube videos as an "oath breaker" and a "lawbreaker" — meaning, of course, God's law.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization said on Twitter.

As if to clarify how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

I gotta say, WBC may be the only Christians I actually respect - because, unlike most of the other Bible-based religions, they actually follow what their "word of God".

Quote from: dps on September 06, 2015, 09:57:22 PM
With Westboro, it's more "Everyone but us is an enemy".

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:03:43 AM

Quote from: dps on September 06, 2015, 09:57:22 PM
With Westboro, it's more "Everyone but us is an enemy".

Nah, they simply follow the Bible, unlike most "Christians".

Quote from: Jaron on September 07, 2015, 12:02:19 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:00:42 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
:lmfao:

QuoteGay-Hating Westboro Church Protests Ky. Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriages
by M. ALEX JOHNSON

In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism, Westboro Baptist — the unaffiliated Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay agenda — is attacking the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of court orders.

Westboro, or WBC, is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims of mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

Referring to Jeremiah 3:20 — the King James version of which reads, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD" — WBC undertook a P.R. campaign over the weekend, attacking the thrice-divorced (and legally remarried) Davis in a string of Tweets and YouTube videos as an "oath breaker" and a "lawbreaker" — meaning, of course, God's law.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization said on Twitter.

As if to clarify how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

I gotta say, WBC may be the only Christians I actually respect - because, unlike most of the other Bible-based religions, they actually follow what their "word of God".

Do you seriously mean to say of all Christians world wide these are the only ones you respect? That seems very short sighted of you.

Quote from: Jaron on September 06, 2015, 10:19:57 PM
We are social justice warriors.  :cool:

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:07:13 AM

Quote from: Jaron on September 07, 2015, 12:02:19 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:00:42 AM

Quote from: Caliga on September 06, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
:lmfao:

QuoteGay-Hating Westboro Church Protests Ky. Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriages
by M. ALEX JOHNSON

In what may be the pinnacle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" activism, Westboro Baptist — the unaffiliated Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay agenda — is attacking the Kentucky court clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of court orders.

Westboro, or WBC, is notorious and widely scorned for picketing funerals for service members of victims of mass shootings to draw attention to its "God Hates Fags" argument that God is punishing America for accommodating homosexuality.

Referring to Jeremiah 3:20 — the King James version of which reads, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD" — WBC undertook a P.R. campaign over the weekend, attacking the thrice-divorced (and legally remarried) Davis in a string of Tweets and YouTube videos as an "oath breaker" and a "lawbreaker" — meaning, of course, God's law.

"Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband," the organization said on Twitter.

As if to clarify how it could so viciously attack someone who's fighting for its own principles, the group said, "Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

I gotta say, WBC may be the only Christians I actually respect - because, unlike most of the other Bible-based religions, they actually follow what their "word of God".

Do you seriously mean to say of all Christians world wide these are the only ones you respect? That seems very short sighted of you.

Well, WBC show what Christianity really means - so at least they are honest. I don't respect people who are blind or deceitful and follow an organisation they would be abhorred with.

QuoteTennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.

Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because "With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee's judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage."

Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."

Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence."

Quote from: celedhring on September 08, 2015, 03:44:07 AM
Wait, you need "evidence" to get divorced in the US (in TN at least)? Doesn't the stated will of any of the spouses suffice to get granted one?  :huh:

Over here getting a divorce is automatic, if you go to court is just to sort the alimony/assets/children issues, but you can't get denied a divorce.

Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2015, 03:52:34 AM
@celed: Seems so. Germany used to have a court decide who carried how much guilt for the divorce (and to determine who gets the kids, who gets how much alimony etc.), but since that led to rather ugly and nasty court battles, the guilt question was largely removed from divorce proceedings.

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 01:35:56 AM
Does Marti do anything actively to restrict the rights of religious people? :unsure:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2015, 04:34:59 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 01:35:56 AM
Does Marti do anything actively to restrict the rights of religious people? :unsure:

No, but nobody here is restricting the rights of gays either.

Quote from: celedhring on September 08, 2015, 03:44:07 AM
Wait, you need "evidence" to get divorced in the US (in TN at least)? Doesn't the stated will of any of the spouses suffice to get granted one?  :huh:

Over here getting a divorce is automatic, if you go to court is just to sort the alimony/assets/children issues, but you can't get denied a divorce.

Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2015, 12:00:42 AM
I gotta say, WBC may be the only Christians I actually respect - because, unlike most of the other Bible-based religions, they actually follow what their "word of God".

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 01:35:56 AM
Does Marti do anything actively to restrict the rights of religious people? :unsure:

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 07:42:03 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 01:35:56 AM
Does Marti do anything actively to restrict the rights of religious people? :unsure:

Does the definition of Homophobe require active participation in politics?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 08:36:01 AM
I think for starters there is a difference between being anti-gay and anti-religion - being gay is an innate biological trait, being religious is an acquired worldview/philosophical choice. Being anti-religion or anti-Christian is like being anti-communist or anti-capitalist - it may involve some degree of misrepresentation of the views one is opposed to, but it is nowhere comparable to being, saying, homophobic, racist or antisemitic.

Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
To my mind, the essence of any sort of bigotry tends to be - unjustified, unfair and derogatory generalizations about a group of people.

How that group is defined may be different, and I suppose a case could be made that bigotry directed at a group defined by characteristics that are innate as opposed to characteristics that are chosen is more serious and so worse. But it is similar in kind.

Sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on hatred of bigotry as a matter or morality. Ultimately, bigotry is, basically, a mistake - a sort of mental malfunction, or willful blindness to facts. For whatever reasons, bigotry tends to be the action of believing that 'all X is like Y', and so worthy of distain or hatred, and an unwillingness to accept evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 08:41:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 08:36:01 AM
I think for starters there is a difference between being anti-gay and anti-religion - being gay is an innate biological trait, being religious is an acquired worldview/philosophical choice. Being anti-religion or anti-Christian is like being anti-communist or anti-capitalist - it may involve some degree of misrepresentation of the views one is opposed to, but it is nowhere comparable to being, saying, homophobic, racist or antisemitic.

I don't know...saying that all Christians are actually the WBC and you respect them for being 'honest' is pretty comparable to what racists or antisemites say.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:11:44 AM
Not really - again, the Bible is a verifiable, objectively existing text, which can be read and interpreted.

QuoteSo if you say you think the Bible is the word of God, it is not a "generalisation" or "bigotry" to expect you to agree with everything the Bible says (it would be different if you said that the Bible is simply a historical text, that has some value still today but by large is outdated and inadequate to modern times).

QuoteLikewise, if you are a Christian and believe that Bible is the word of god, then saying you either support the idiocy in the Bible or you are a hypocrite and ignore the idiocy, is not bigoted - it's simply a statement of fact.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:11:44 AM
Not really - again, the Bible is a verifiable, objectively existing text, which can be read and interpreted.

It does not sound like you have done much of either.

QuoteSo if you say you think the Bible is the word of God, it is not a "generalisation" or "bigotry" to expect you to agree with everything the Bible says (it would be different if you said that the Bible is simply a historical text, that has some value still today but by large is outdated and inadequate to modern times).

It is bigotry to demand a specific interpretation as the truth to fit your bigoted agenda, yes. It is exactly what anti-semites do with the Talmud (all taken out of context of course).

QuoteLikewise, if you are a Christian and believe that Bible is the word of god, then saying you either support the idiocy in the Bible or you are a hypocrite and ignore the idiocy, is not bigoted - it's simply a statement of fact.

But the WBC ignores tons of stuff and you have no problem with that, because it supports your bigoted world view.

Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
To my mind, the essence of any sort of bigotry tends to be - unjustified, unfair and derogatory generalizations about a group of people.

How that group is defined may be different, and I suppose a case could be made that bigotry directed at a group defined by characteristics that are innate as opposed to characteristics that are chosen is more serious and so worse. But it is similar in kind.

Sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on hatred of bigotry as a matter or morality. Ultimately, bigotry is, basically, a mistake - a sort of mental malfunction, or willful blindness to facts. For whatever reasons, bigotry tends to be the action of believing that 'all X is like Y', and so worthy of distain or hatred, and an unwillingness to accept evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:26:58 AM
And I have probably done more Bible reading and studying that you or most so-called Christians, for that matter.

QuoteCan you give me an example of stuff WBC ignores?

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 09:31:42 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:26:58 AM
And I have probably done more Bible reading and studying that you or most so-called Christians, for that matter.

Yeah I bet.

QuoteCan you give me an example of stuff WBC ignores?

Well fuck theology boy, you read and study and Bible more than me and all of us hypocritical non-WBC Christians so why don't you tell me?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:30:14 AM
And Valmy, the interpretation that Bible is homophobic/anti-gay is not "mine" or "taken out of context" - the fact that millions of Christians across the globe use that interpretation to persecute and discriminate against gays makes your statement a lie.

QuoteSo this is not exactly what antisemites have done with Talmud, given that Jews do not seem to openly preach what antisemites accuse them of.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:33:47 AM
Wow you are really acting bizarre here. You made a claim that WBC ignores the Bible - I dont see any proof of that. How am I going to argue a negative?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:42:04 AM
Again, Valmy, I don't think that to say Bible is anti-gay or anti-women requires a "specific interpretation".

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2015, 09:30:28 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
To my mind, the essence of any sort of bigotry tends to be - unjustified, unfair and derogatory generalizations about a group of people.

How that group is defined may be different, and I suppose a case could be made that bigotry directed at a group defined by characteristics that are innate as opposed to characteristics that are chosen is more serious and so worse. But it is similar in kind.

Sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on hatred of bigotry as a matter or morality. Ultimately, bigotry is, basically, a mistake - a sort of mental malfunction, or willful blindness to facts. For whatever reasons, bigotry tends to be the action of believing that 'all X is like Y', and so worthy of distain or hatred, and an unwillingness to accept evidence to the contrary.

I think this isn't as helpful of a definition as it might appear.  What if your generalization is statistically justified but doesn't apply to every single person?  Are you making a mistake?  Are you being unjustified?  Are you being unfair?  Very debatable, especially considering that you were to be perfectly rational, not making a generalization when a generalization with some statistical validity can be made is on average a bigger mistake than making a generalization that doesn't explain all variance. 

Arguments against bigotry that are centered around it being a mistake tend have an extremely high content of sophistry.  Bigotry may have some utility on an individual level, but it's definitely damaging to society as a whole.  That's precisely why bigotry should be viewed as a matter of morality.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:09:09 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
To my mind, the essence of any sort of bigotry tends to be - unjustified, unfair and derogatory generalizations about a group of people.

How that group is defined may be different, and I suppose a case could be made that bigotry directed at a group defined by characteristics that are innate as opposed to characteristics that are chosen is more serious and so worse. But it is similar in kind.

Sometimes I think too much emphasis is put on hatred of bigotry as a matter or morality. Ultimately, bigotry is, basically, a mistake - a sort of mental malfunction, or willful blindness to facts. For whatever reasons, bigotry tends to be the action of believing that 'all X is like Y', and so worthy of distain or hatred, and an unwillingness to accept evidence to the contrary.

The thing is, generalisations like this can be justified when talking about people sharing a given ideology (as opposed to sharing innate biological characteristics).

For example, saying that all supporters of Hitler are either antisemitic or wilfully blind and ignoring the nazi ideology's antisemitism is not "bigotry" - it is simply the statement of fact.

Likewise, if you are a Christian and believe that Bible is the word of god, then saying you either support the idiocy in the Bible or you are a hypocrite and ignore the idiocy, is not bigoted - it's simply a statement of fact.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:33:47 AM

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 09:31:42 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:26:58 AM
And I have probably done more Bible reading and studying that you or most so-called Christians, for that matter.

Yeah I bet.

QuoteCan you give me an example of stuff WBC ignores?

Well fuck theology boy, you read and study and Bible more than me and all of us hypocritical non-WBC Christians so why don't you tell me?

Wow you are really acting bizarre here. You made a claim that WBC ignores the Bible - I dont see any proof of that. How am I going to argue a negative?

Quote from: frunk on September 08, 2015, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:33:47 AM
Wow you are really acting bizarre here. You made a claim that WBC ignores the Bible - I dont see any proof of that. How am I going to argue a negative?

How exactly do you calculate that WBC is the most faithful version of Christianity in the first place?  As far as I can tell they ignore large chunks of the New Testament.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2015, 10:31:37 AM

Quote from: frunk on September 08, 2015, 09:42:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:33:47 AM
Wow you are really acting bizarre here. You made a claim that WBC ignores the Bible - I dont see any proof of that. How am I going to argue a negative?

How exactly do you calculate that WBC is the most faithful version of Christianity in the first place?  As far as I can tell they ignore large chunks of the New Testament.

Not to mention that like most Christians they ignore the entire Mosaic law.

I know of no religion that actually follows the Bible literally.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 10:32:01 AM
Is there any Christian church that only accepts the gospels but rejects the Old Testament and wiritings of St. Paul?

QuoteNot to mention that most of the Old Testatment is more of a "word puzzle" for numerologists 

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 10:33:23 AM
Ok but then why do Christians here get so bristly when one mentions that the story of Christ is a myth/allegory more than a historical fact?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:11:44 AM
Not really - again, the Bible is a verifiable, objectively existing text, which can be read and interpreted. So if you say you think the Bible is the word of God, it is not a "generalisation" or "bigotry" to expect you to agree with everything the Bible says (it would be different if you said that the Bible is simply a historical text, that has some value still today but by large is outdated and inadequate to modern times).

Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2015, 10:00:59 AM
I don't agree. This is close to stating that beliefs that are "damaging to society as a whole" ought to be morally sanctioned - whether they are true and provable or not.

Why is that necessary, when the most significant thing about bigotry is that it tends to be provably false?

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2015, 11:01:07 AM
Well, the point is that I disagree with "provably false".  For one, there isn't even an agreement on what "provably false" means.  A lot of liberals will claim that a single counter-example is a proof of falsity of some generalization.

Quote from: Jaron on September 08, 2015, 11:13:06 AM
I don't think that is an ad hom.

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 11:25:42 AM
I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment. :unsure:

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2015, 11:31:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 11:25:42 AM
I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment. :unsure:

DSB does tend to do it a lot.  Yes, there are some counterexamples when he doesn't say something stupid and and ill-fitting to the discussion, but...  Actually, hold on a minute, are there any such counter-examples?  :hmm:

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2015, 11:31:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 11:25:42 AM
I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment. :unsure:

DSB does tend to do it a lot.  Yes, there are some counterexamples when he doesn't say something stupid and and ill-fitting to the discussion, but...  Actually, hold on a minute, are there any such counter-examples?  :hmm:

Ok that might have been an ad hom :P

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2015, 09:26:58 AM
Can you give me an example of stuff WBC ignores?

And I have probably done more Bible reading and studying that you or most so-called Christians, for that matter.