The state legislature just overrode the governor's veto. :cool:
This makes it the first state in the United States to do so via the legislative process, without a court order.
23 to 5.
Wait's that the senate.
Did the House vote already ?
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
23 to 5.
Wait's that the senate.
Did the House vote already ?
Yes, 100-49 in favor.
Ruh oh. Now Hans will have to be in favor of same sex marriage.
This legislature will go down as the greatest in the history of the state of Vermont!
'Wow it would be an honor just to be mentioned in the same breath with famous Vermont politicians like...erm....hmmm...'
The governor had vetoed it? I assume he's a Democrat.
Well, note that while Massachusetts legalized gay marriage via court order, the Republicans in the legislature unsuccessfully tried to overturn the court order (I forget the mechanics by which they tried), and then the public eventually voted via referendum in favor of upholding gay marriage.
Hansy's reaction will likely be that we should kick Vermont out of the union and make it join Canada. I think a large number of Vermonters would be cool with that actually. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
The governor had vetoed it? I assume he's a Democrat.
Nope, Republican.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:15:51 AM
Nope, Republican.
In Vermont? :blink:
And Connecticut...
There's been a lot of Republican governors in New England.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:15:51 AM
Nope, Republican.
In Vermont? :blink:
In New England, there are more Republicans than most people realize, but these tend to be extremely moderate Republicans. I don't know anything about Jim Douglas, but if he's been elected in Vermont he must be extremely moderate or even a RINO.
Surprisingly Vermont isn't too fond of the Dems, especially at the state level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:15:51 AM
Nope, Republican.
In Vermont? :blink:
Right wing Democrats get elected in the South, why wouldn't left wing Republicans get elected in the Northeast? State and local politics have different dynamics than national politics.
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Surprisingly Vermont isn't too fond of the Dems, especially at the state level.
:unsure:
Gov. Howard Dean was a Democrat, as is Sen. Leahy. Bernie Sanders is really a socialist (but officially 'Independent'), but I think he caucases with the Dems.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
Also, Vermont really isn't populated exclusively by middle-class "granola-eater" types, there's plenty of native Vermonters from rural areas who don't share a liberal ethos at all, even if they maybe aren't as right-wing as many rural Alabamans.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
In New England, there are more Republicans than most people realize, but these tend to be extremely moderate Republicans. I don't know anything about Jim Douglas, but if he's been elected in Vermont he must be extremely moderate or even a RINO.
Bill Weld got elected governor of Mass while I was living there, so I'm aware of that. But Vermont is about the crunchiest state in the union.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:34:21 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Surprisingly Vermont isn't too fond of the Dems, especially at the state level.
:unsure:
Gov. Howard Dean was a Democrat, as is Sen. Leahy. Bernie Sanders is really a socialist (but officially 'Independent'), but I think he caucases with the Dems.
That's pretty much my point.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
maybe they will secede :w00t:
This is cool. :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 07, 2009, 11:39:39 AM
maybe they will secede :w00t:
A girdle of orange, Puritan-pumpkin colored girders
braces the tingling Statehouse,
shaking over the excavations, as it faces Colonel Shaw
and his bell-cheeked homo infantry
on St. Gaudens' shaking Civil War relief,
propped by a plank splint against the garage's earthquake.
Two months after marching through Boston,
half the regiment was dead;
at the dedication,
William James could almost hear the bronze homos breathe.
Their monument sticks like a fishbone
in the city's throat.
Its Colonel is as lean
as a compass-needle.
He has an angry wrenlike vigilance,
a greyhound's gently tautness;
he seems to wince at pleasure,
and suffocate for privacy.
He is out of bounds now. He rejoices in man's lovely,
peculiar power to choose life and die--
when he leads his fag soldiers to death,
he cannot bend his back.?
Heh. A few of the votes to overturn the veto came from people who voted against it, but now feel that the governor was being an asshat. I approve. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
Change in the South is easy. You just need to send in the National Guard. :whistle:
How is this breaking news? Faggots have been eating at the core of civilization for years now.
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
How is this breaking news? Faggots have been eating at the core of civilization for years now.
They should eat in the streets with the other dogs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
Yeah, but our anti-Americanism helped with that.
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
How is this breaking news? Faggots have been eating at the core of civilization for years now.
Your shtick is getting old. :D
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 11:33:17 AM
Right wing Democrats get elected in the South, why wouldn't left wing Republicans get elected in the Northeast? State and local politics have different dynamics than national politics.
Exactly, I'm shocked that Yi is shocked. Giuliani, Romney, Pataki, Bloomberg, all were Republicans when elected.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 12:50:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
How is this breaking news? Faggots have been eating at the core of civilization for years now.
Your shtick is getting old. :D
Yours is even moreso.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
We'll see.
Right, now, a third of Americans support gay marriage; a third support civil unions. I think it is probable that most or all of the Northeast will have gay marriage by 2012, with civil unions in Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and California.
Once you get to that point, you're talking about hundreds of millions of Americans who live in states where gays are forming families with state recognition, and the world not ending.
My guess is a supreme court case sometime in the 2020s, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2009, 12:54:49 PM
Exactly, I'm shocked that Yi is shocked. Giuliani, Romney, Pataki, Bloomberg, all were Republicans when elected.
And none of them were elected in Vermont.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 07, 2009, 01:26:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
We'll see.
Right, now, a third of Americans support gay marriage; a third support civil unions. I think it is probable that most or all of the Northeast will have gay marriage by 2012, with civil unions in Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and California.
Once you get to that point, you're talking about hundreds of millions of Americans who live in states where gays are forming families with state recognition, and the world not ending.
My guess is a supreme court case sometime in the 2020s, but I could be wrong.
:lol: You don't live where Cal & I live.
Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2009, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 07, 2009, 01:26:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
How long will it take before opposing gay marriage becomes politically taboo in the US. In Canada it took about one Federal election.
It'll take much longer than that. It's going to be a very, very tough battle in the South.
We'll see.
Right, now, a third of Americans support gay marriage; a third support civil unions. I think it is probable that most or all of the Northeast will have gay marriage by 2012, with civil unions in Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and California.
Once you get to that point, you're talking about hundreds of millions of Americans who live in states where gays are forming families with state recognition, and the world not ending.
My guess is a supreme court case sometime in the 2020s, but I could be wrong.
:lol: You don't live where Cal & I live.
You live together? :)
@ Faeelin
The issue is that nearly all of these states have constitutional bans and legislatures hostile to the idea. Plus you're naive if you think many people in the South aren't deeply homophobic.
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2009, 01:35:42 PM
You live together? :)
Yep, I squatted on his property.
That sounds kinda dirty :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2009, 01:38:27 PM
Yep, I squatted on his property.
That sounds kinda dirty :blush:
:lol:Kinda?
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
@ Faeelin
The issue is that nearly all of these states have constitutional bans and legislatures hostile to the idea. Plus you're naive if you think many people in the South aren't deeply homophobic.
Jesus hates gayness. This I know, For the Bible tells me so..
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
The issue is that nearly all of these states have constitutional bans and legislatures hostile to the idea. Plus you're naive if you think many people in the South aren't deeply homophobic.
It annoyed the living fuck out of me when they voted a ban into the Ohio constitution. Then I read Marti's posts over time and I'm not that annoyed anymore.
I wonder if Martinus would hate Vermont if he found out about their gun laws.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
@ Faeelin
The issue is that nearly all of these states have constitutional bans and legislatures hostile to the idea. Plus you're naive if you think many people in the South aren't deeply homophobic.
No, I readily acknowledge it. I am just saying that I think that once the majority of the nation trends has accepted gay marriage, the south will get dragged along by the untrammeled power of, to quote Hans, a Supreme Court who makes up claims based upon hippy tea leaf readings. State constitutional bans would be unconstitutional given the Federal Constitution.
As a better legal argument, I'd expect a court to find that DoMA is unconstitutional first.
Quote from: derspiess on April 07, 2009, 01:33:28 PM
:lol: You don't live where Cal & I live.
I guess I wasn't being clear. My feeling is that the South will get dragged along against its will by one of two means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 01:32:38 PM
And none of them were elected in Vermont.
Not in Vermont, but in fruity states nonetheless.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2009, 01:55:06 PM
I wonder if Martinus would hate Vermont if he found out about their gun laws.
What gun laws? :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
What gun laws? :lol:
The perfect state for the heavily armed gay couple.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 07, 2009, 02:00:14 PMI guess I wasn't being clear. My feeling is that the South will get dragged along against its will by one of two means.
I agree that a Supreme Court ruling on the issue in favor of gay marriage is possible, but you simply won't see justices of the peace, county clerks, etc. in places like rural Alabama and Mississippi cooperating. This has very little potential for disorder and violence like the Civil Rights Movement, though, simply because gays from those areas for the most part are either in deep denial or have fled, so there is less potential for confrontation (obviously that wasn't the case with blacks).
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 03:12:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
What gun laws? :lol:
The perfect state for the heavily armed gay couple.
They don't need gun laws in Vermont since there are no blacks. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2009, 01:55:06 PM
I wonder if Martinus would hate Vermont if he found out about their gun laws.
What gun laws? :lol:
:D My point.
BREAKING: Washington D.C. has voted to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
I actually have a rather large legalese book on the various gun laws of each state, circa 2004 or somesuch that was sent to me (since I have a C&R license and wanted to make sure I was doing transfers correctly).
Naturally, the first thing I do is start comparing my state (a few pages long) to California (tens of pages) to New Hampshire (couple of paragraphs) to Vermont (next to nothing). Amusing read, to say the least.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
BREAKING: Washington D.C. has voted to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
The Republic is collapsing. A new hetero Sulla is needed to proscribe the gay.
I think some of you are WAY overstating the differences between people of different regions in this country. Half* the people who live in the South had grandparents somewhere else. People in the countryside have television and the internet just like people in the cities. A swing of 5-10% of the electorate can mean the difference between a "red" state and a "blue" state. And gay marriage was narrowly defeated in California.
Sure, the more conservative areas like the South and the Plains will lag behind the rest of the country in allowing gay marriage, but not by that much, and when it becomes the law of the land they'll grumble a bit and then move on.
*Just randomly guessing number, though 3/4 of mine were from Canada and Maryland.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
BREAKING: Washington D.C. has voted to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
Hrmm. My understanding is that this has to be approved by Congress. This will be interesting.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 07, 2009, 01:55:06 PM
I wonder if Martinus would hate Vermont if he found out about their gun laws.
What gun laws? :lol:
:) Concealed carry for everyone FTW.
Thursday, that is a subject I have studied in detail. Half is an overstatement certaintly, but it is true that northerners are moving here in unprecedented numbers- the rust belt in particular is trying to empty itself at an alarming rate at our expense. This will certaintly have an effect on the South, which finds its cultural borders shrink as more of it is brought into line with 'mainstream' America.
I tend to agree with Martinus and Faeelin, that the South will resist this to the last but find itself overturned, and that backed up with force should it be necissary. (It will be, but I do not anticipate any armed clash- just a 'symbolic' occupation ala the integration of schools.)
This, combined with the fact that the South is indeed becoming more American, (though not so much or so fast as Thursday might think- it wouldent pay to underestimate regional differences any more than it would be to overstate them) presents a rather bleak picture for the Southern nationalist.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 07, 2009, 03:29:25 PM
I think some of you are WAY overstating the differences between people of different regions in this country. Half* the people who live in the South had grandparents somewhere else. People in the countryside have television and the internet just like people in the cities. A swing of 5-10% of the electorate can mean the difference between a "red" state and a "blue" state. And gay marriage was narrowly defeated in California.
Sure, the more conservative areas like the South and the Plains will lag behind the rest of the country in allowing gay marriage, but not by that much, and when it becomes the law of the land they'll grumble a bit and then move on.
*Just randomly guessing number, though 3/4 of mine were from Canada and Maryland.
:yes: I was recently made aware that part of the reason for South Jersey's hickdom is the amount of post-ACW Kentuckeyan transplants.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 07, 2009, 08:16:41 PM
:yes: I was recently made aware that part of the reason for South Jersey's hickdom is the amount of post-ACW Kentuckeyan transplants.
:huh:
Interesting. I was under the impression that the Pineys have been there since colonial times, and were always that redneck.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 07, 2009, 08:16:41 PM
:yes: I was recently made aware that part of the reason for South Jersey's hickdom is the amount of post-ACW Kentuckeyan transplants.
Southern Ohio also had an influx of Kentuckians that increased its hick quotient. I remember my grandfather had a strong dislike for these folks, and some of that disdain carried through to my mom-- one of my brothers had talked about moving to Northern KY & she had a fit :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 02:36:09 PMSouthern Ohio also had an influx of Kentuckians that increased its hick quotient. I remember my grandfather had a strong dislike for these folks, and some of that disdain carried through to my mom-- one of my brothers had talked about moving to Northern KY & she had a fit :lol:
Now THAT migration I did know about. They also flooded southern Indiana, which is why Hoosiers are more redneck than alot of people in and around Louisville on this side of the river.
I'm going to kick both of you (Spicy and Cal) in the nuts.
An old joke:
Why are there so many kentuckians in Ohio?
They ran out of gas on the way to Michigan
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
BREAKING: Washington D.C. has voted to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
:w00t: :yeah:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:41:24 PMWhy are there so many kentuckians in Ohio?
They ran out of gas on the way to Michigan
"Well I left Kentucky back in forty-nine
went to Dee-troit to work on an assembly line"
:unsure:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 02:41:24 PM
Why are there so many in Ohio?
Es weiss es nicht! :uffda:
On this forum we speak ENGLISH, son. :mad:
These colors don't run. :mad:
...and so forth.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 02:36:09 PM
Southern Ohio also had an influx of Kentuckians that increased its hick quotient. I remember my grandfather had a strong dislike for these folks, and some of that disdain carried through to my mom-- one of my brothers had talked about moving to Northern KY & she had a fit :lol:
oooh talking bad about el jefe and his missus like that!
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2009, 02:36:09 PM
Southern Ohio also had an influx of Kentuckians that increased its hick quotient. I remember my grandfather had a strong dislike for these folks, and some of that disdain carried through to my mom-- one of my brothers had talked about moving to Northern KY & she had a fit :lol:
oooh talking bad about el jefe and his missus like that!
the missus doesn't have hillbilly blood. Kraut and Irish, yes.
me, I have the hillbilly blood.
Don't ask him if he makes moonshine :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 03:14:43 PM
Don't ask him if he makes moonshine :ph34r:
Ick. booze.
Now, if you want me to help crush a union, I've got that in my blood.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 03:13:16 PM
the missus doesn't have hillbilly blood. Kraut and Irish, yes.
me, I have the hillbilly blood.
Ewwww the Irish!
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PMEwwww the Irish!
I agree. NO IRISH NEED APPLY. :mad:
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 03:13:16 PM
the missus doesn't have hillbilly blood. Kraut and Irish, yes.
me, I have the hillbilly blood.
Ewwww the Irish!
So fiery. Yeah. Going to the motherland in July, to curse the English and praise her (supposed) ancestor, Wolfe Tone.
Erin Go Braugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo
QuoteWithout the support of Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution can not move forward in the Senate.
Below is the text of Senator Gronstal's response to Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley of Chariton on April 6, 2009, the first day the Senate met after the unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to marry.
Transcript
One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.
Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys dont understand. Youve already lost. My generation doesnt care.
I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and thats what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.
Is that so wrong? I dont think thats so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know Ive been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.
No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.
It's time for the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage throughout the land. :)
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 06:49:50 AM
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
The freedom to treat gays like second class citizens is being threatened :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:07:33 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
The freedom to treat gays like second class citizens is being threatened :(
Nothing can stop me from treating gays like second-class citizens.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 08:12:55 AM
Nothing can stop me from treating gays like second-class citizens.
Neil is a powerful force for liberty.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 08:12:55 AM
Nothing can stop me from treating gays like second-class citizens.
Neil is a powerful force for liberty.
Those who deserve it will be given liberty.
THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN!
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN!
Not really, but there is certainly an obvious sense of inevitability about this.
I've always thought that the result was inevitable - but now it is obviously so.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN!
Jesus, that is a gay saying if I ever heard one.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 08:07:33 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
The freedom to treat gays like second class citizens is being threatened :(
I'm trying to figure out if it's a good ad, by saying "We're not against gay marriage, we're against them destroying our churches" or if it's so over the top that it's ridiculous.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 11:17:12 AM
I'm trying to figure out if it's a good ad, by saying "We're not against gay marriage, we're against them destroying our churches" or if it's so over the top that it's ridiculous.
That narrative fails when the Massachusetts mom says she is upset that she has to watch public schools teach her children that gay marriage is okay.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 11:17:12 AM
I'm trying to figure out if it's a good ad, by saying "We're not against gay marriage, we're against them destroying our churches" or if it's so over the top that it's ridiculous.
I doubt it. They called the Vermont vote a black day in the history of Vermont, if they were pro gay marriage why would they say that? Allowing Gays to be married does not end marriage anymore but it does seem to end freedom of religion. All will be forced to worship at the chapel of gay.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 11:30:51 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 11:17:12 AM
I'm trying to figure out if it's a good ad, by saying "We're not against gay marriage, we're against them destroying our churches" or if it's so over the top that it's ridiculous.
I doubt it. They called the Vermont vote a black day in the history of Vermont, if they were pro gay marriage why would they say that? Allowing Gays to be married does not end marriage anymore but it does seem to end freedom of religion. All will be forced to worship at the chapel of gay.
To be fair, that's exactly what has happened in Europe. It's not totally unreasonable that the Christ loonies would be afraid.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 11:32:55 AMTo be fair, that's exactly what has happened in Europe. It's not totally unreasonable that the Christ loonies would be afraid.
Nah Christ lost out in Europe when all the churches fucked themselves by jumping in bed with Nazis and Fascists.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2009, 11:33:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 11:32:55 AMTo be fair, that's exactly what has happened in Europe. It's not totally unreasonable that the Christ loonies would be afraid.
Nah Christ lost out in Europe when all the churches fucked themselves by jumping in bed with Nazis and Fascists.
To some degree. Then again, the Nazis and Fascists were right: Communism must be destroyed at any cost.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:52:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN!
I've always thought that the result was inevitable - but now it is obviously so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo)
Iowa Senate Leader Mike Gronstal:
QuoteOne of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: 'You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care.' I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 11:35:07 AM
To some degree. Then again, the Nazis and Fascists were right: Communism must be destroyed at any cost.
And, of course, did more than anyone else to make it as threatening and powerful as it was.
Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:52:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
THE DOOR'S WIDE OPEN!
Not really, but there is certainly an obvious sense of inevitability about this.
I've always thought that the result was inevitable - but now it is obviously so.
I think it means it's not possible until 2014 at the earliest. Which means a constitutional amendment seems rather unlikely :mellow:
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 11:35:07 AM
To some degree. Then again, the Nazis and Fascists were right: Communism must be destroyed at any cost.
And, of course, did more than anyone else to make it as threatening and powerful as it was.
I disagree. The Russians made communism threatening and powerful. Remember, from it's inception, the whole purpose of communism was mass slaughter.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 06:49:50 AM
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
That kind of commercial assures that we will have gay marriage. Who is going to take that seriously?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 06:49:50 AM
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
That kind of commercial assures that we will have gay marriage. Who is going to take that seriously?
Indeed. A proper anti-gay commercial would use quotes from most of the Languish gays, proving to the world that there can be no peaceful coexistance.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 03:57:54 PMThat kind of commercial assures that we will have gay marriage. Who is going to take that seriously?
Especially considering the fact that most of the guys in that video were FUH-LAMING!
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 06:49:50 AM
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
That kind of commercial assures that we will have gay marriage. Who is going to take that seriously?
Indeed. A proper anti-gay commercial would use quotes from most of the Languish gays, proving to the world that there can be no peaceful coexistance.
Well, I'm open to serious financial offers. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 03:20:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2009, 03:13:16 PM
the missus doesn't have hillbilly blood. Kraut and Irish, yes.
me, I have the hillbilly blood.
Ewwww the Irish!
So fiery. Yeah. Going to the motherland in July, to curse the English and praise her (supposed) ancestor, Wolfe Tone.
Erin Go Braugh.
Erin go braless?
On a slightly more serious note, I know the USSC has deliberately been staying out of this, citing marriage as a state-to-state issue, but at some point they're going to have to address the agenda of legislating homophobia. The only reason Prop 8 succeeded was because they could hide behind it as a populist measure, and not be forced to provide rationale for the proposition.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 04:52:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 09, 2009, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 06:49:50 AM
"OH MAH GAWD NO GAYZ GETTIN MARRIED THREATENS MAH FAMURLY!!!! :mad: "
A storm is coming, our storm, and when it arrives it will shake the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
That kind of commercial assures that we will have gay marriage. Who is going to take that seriously?
Indeed. A proper anti-gay commercial would use quotes from most of the Languish gays, proving to the world that there can be no peaceful coexistance.
Well, I'm open to serious financial offers. :P
Your Languish posts are public domain.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 09:08:30 PM
On a slightly more serious note, I know the USSC has deliberately been staying out of this, citing marriage as a state-to-state issue, but at some point they're going to have to address the agenda of legislating homophobia. The only reason Prop 8 succeeded was because they could hide behind it as a populist measure, and not be forced to provide rationale for the proposition.
Yeah, simply because of the "full faith and credit" clause, sooner or later the USSC will have to weigh in.
I'm not sure that I understand your second sentence. By definition, isn't any proposition that succeeds in those states that have them a populist measure?
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
Indeed. A proper anti-gay commercial would use quotes from most of the Languish gays, proving to the world that there can be no peaceful coexistance.
We could probably use Languish quotes to justify hating many groups.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 10:12:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2009, 03:59:31 PM
Indeed. A proper anti-gay commercial would use quotes from most of the Languish gays, proving to the world that there can be no peaceful coexistance.
We could probably use Languish quotes to justify hating many groups.
But we could probably only use Neil's quotes to get a hate crime conviction.
Maybe Lettow too, but then he is insane and in the US, so probably just Neil.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 10:16:49 PM
But we could probably only use Neil's quotes to get a hate crime conviction.
Maybe Lettow too, but then he is insane and in the US, so probably just Neil.
Hatred of whites wouldn't be too hard to justify...in so far as one can justify hatred. :P
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 09:59:23 PM
Yeah, simply because of the "full faith and credit" clause, sooner or later the USSC will have to weigh in.
I'm not sure that I understand your second sentence. By definition, isn't any proposition that succeeds in those states that have them a populist measure?
By definition, yes. What I'm complaining about is that in this particular case, it's setting a precedent for using voter propositions to circumvent checks and balances, so that they could force legislative action that would not be otherwise passable. If voter props are going to be treated as legislation, they need to be subject to the same standards and review as any other legislation to be passed.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 10:18:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 10:16:49 PM
But we could probably only use Neil's quotes to get a hate crime conviction.
Maybe Lettow too, but then he is insane and in the US, so probably just Neil.
Hatred of whites wouldn't be too hard to justify...in so far as one can justify hatred. :P
I think Neil classifies himself as, "ethnic albertan." :D
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 10:24:55 PM
If voter props are going to be treated as legislation, they need to be subject to the same standards and review as any other legislation to be passed.
Aren't ballot amendments to state constitutions already subject to judicial review?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2009, 11:28:56 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 10:24:55 PM
If voter props are going to be treated as legislation, they need to be subject to the same standards and review as any other legislation to be passed.
Aren't ballot amendments to state constitutions already subject to judicial review?
I don't know how it works in the US exactly, but I assume that if a measure changes the state constitution, it cannot be reviewed from the point of view of being inconsistent with the state constitution - because you can only review a hierarchically lower act of law from the point of view of its consistency with the higher act.
So the only review that could happen, I suppose is to answer whether its manner of passing was constitutional in itself (e.g. like the argument made against Prop 8 that it does not guarantee the proper rule of law if rights of group of people can be taken away by a simple majority of popular vote) and whether it is consistent with the federal constitution.
This makes it less possible to challenge it than the act of the legislative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2009, 11:28:56 PM
Aren't ballot amendments to state constitutions already subject to judicial review?
Not necessarily. In California, an amendment is proposed by constitutional convention, legislature, or voter initiative. In this case, 8 percent of the number of voters from the last gubernatorial election had to sign a petition to get it on the ballot.
The voter initiative amendment is sent straight to the ballot. It looks like it's only subject to judicial review after the amendment is passed and codified.
EDIT/NOTE: California and Oregon appear to be the only two states that can amend their own state constitutions by petition and popular vote alone. Every other state appears to require either a legislative session or a constitutional convention.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2009, 11:28:56 PM
Aren't ballot amendments to state constitutions already subject to judicial review?
Not necessarily. In California, an amendment is proposed by constitutional convention, legislature, or voter initiative. In this case, 8 percent of the number of voters from the last gubernatorial election had to sign a petition to get it on the ballot.
The voter initiative amendment is sent straight to the ballot. It looks like it's only subject to judicial review after the amendment is passed and codified.
EDIT/NOTE: California and Oregon appear to be the only two states that can amend their own state constitutions by petition and popular vote alone. Every other state appears to require either a legislative session or a constitutional convention.
Which makes sense, because otherwise you know the fags would have taken this out before it ever got on the ballot, if they had some legal recourse.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 09:59:23 PM
[Yeah, simply because of the "full faith and credit" clause, sooner or later the USSC will have to weigh in.
Yep, and it will be interesting to see how the various justices justify their abandonment of the Constitution.
I predict a 6-3 decision against the Constitution, with 5 different majority opinions (Thomas concuring with whatever Scalia decides is right).
DOMA states full faith and credit does not apply to marriage. Congress pretty explicitly has the right to set what full faith and credit means; I don't think that you'd get less than a 7-2 on DOMA challenges.
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2009, 06:13:19 PM
DOMA states full faith and credit does not apply to marriage. Congress pretty explicitly has the right to set what full faith and credit means; I don't think that you'd get less than a 7-2 on DOMA challenges.
Hrmm. I'm sure somebody has done an article on it already, but I think I've found what I wanna write for next year.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 05:59:49 PM
Yep, and it will be interesting to see how the various justices justify their abandonment of the Constitution.
And that's the beauty of the US Constitution. No matter what your position on any issue, you're abandoning it.
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2009, 06:13:19 PM
DOMA states full faith and credit does not apply to marriage. Congress pretty explicitly has the right to set what full faith and credit means; I don't think that you'd get less than a 7-2 on DOMA challenges.
Not sure I agree, based on what I have read (which has been pretty much restricted to DoMA, so not representative).
It would be interesting to see on what basis states can invalidate marriages in other states because of sex, but not any other single factor. It is a pretty fine line.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:52:52 PM
And that's the beauty of the US Constitution. No matter what your position on any issue, you're abandoning it.
:lol: Well put.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 09:23:52 AM
EDIT/NOTE: California and Oregon appear to be the only two states that can amend their own state constitutions by petition and popular vote alone. Every other state appears to require either a legislative session or a constitutional convention.
Arkansas's constitution can be amended by petition and popular vote.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2009, 09:23:52 AM
Not necessarily. In California, an amendment is proposed by constitutional convention, legislature, or voter initiative. In this case, 8 percent of the number of voters from the last gubernatorial election had to sign a petition to get it on the ballot.
The voter initiative amendment is sent straight to the ballot. It looks like it's only subject to judicial review after the amendment is passed and codified.
How is that different than an act of the legislature? The courts can't review a new peice of legislation before it has been passed.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 10, 2009, 09:48:51 PM
Arkansas's constitution can be amended by petition and popular vote.
Alone? What I was saying was that California and Oregon appear to be the only states where an amendment can totally bypass the state legislature. Other states have voter access to constitutional amendments, but they have to be endorsed by the state legislature.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2009, 01:55:19 AM
How is that different than an act of the legislature? The courts can't review a new peice of legislation before it has been passed.
The courts can't, but your average legislative representative is going to have access to legal counsel or legal experience with which they will consult before introducing a bill, and once it's in the pipeline, the other representatives will do likewise before the bill comes up for a vote. Most of the California voters didn't have access to that preliminary step.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 12, 2009, 12:03:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2009, 01:55:19 AM
How is that different than an act of the legislature? The courts can't review a new peice of legislation before it has been passed.
The courts can't, but your average legislative representative is going to have access to legal counsel or legal experience with which they will consult before introducing a bill, and once it's in the pipeline, the other representatives will do likewise before the bill comes up for a vote. Most of the California voters didn't have access to that preliminary step.
Yeah, most legislative bodies have constitutional or legislative committees, which give opinions about constitutionality of draft bills. While obviously their role is advisory only, they have some persuasive power.