Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 54 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-12-2012, 08:15 AM   #796
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511

SCOTUS doesn't want another Roe, but they see the polls and they know that homophobes are literally dying ('cause they are old) and Roberts is going to be around for a long, long time, and he wants to get this one right.
You really do get the sense with Roberts that he is about legacy. He'd love to have a Warren-type court to leave behind. No way does he get on the wrong side of the law and history here. I would be very shocked if this wasn't in the bag. At that point you don't even need Kennedy, though he'll probably give in because it's the easier of the two decisions and he's not exactly shown himself to stand by the courage of his convictions.

I don't trust Alito as far as I can spit. Worst appointment to the court in a long time, particularly when you take into account his age.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:11 PM   #797
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:13 AM
I have no reason to believe Alito will not stay in the stone age, except I am thinking his age and middling intellect may cause him to not want to go down in history as such a bigoted ass hat.


before June 2013, we will have more of this,

Quote:
Britain's Conservatives to propose legalizing same-sex marriage

By Henry Chu

10:00 AM PST, December 11, 2012
Advertisement

LONDON – Championing a cause eschewed by fellow conservatives elsewhere, the British government said Tuesday it will sponsor a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry, including in churches, synagogues and mosques that look favorably on such unions.

Religious organizations against the idea would be legally protected from having to wed gays and lesbians, and the Church of England, as the nation’s established church, would specifically be barred. But civil marriage would be available to all couples under the new proposal.

“For some, this is contentious, a radical reform or, indeed, a reform too far,” said Maria Miller, the Conservative Party government minister who unveiled the plan in Parliament. “But the historical facts show that, over the generations, marriage has had a long history of evolution. ... For me, extending marriage to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, this vital institution.”

The bill is likely to be introduced next month and voted on sometime later in the new year. Although church groups and some lawmakers have spoken out vehemently against opening up marriage to same-sex couples, polls show that a majority of Britons support the idea, and the legislation is almost certain to pass.

If so, Britain would become the latest European country to give gay and lesbian residents the right to get hitched. Marriage for same-sex couples is already possible in the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as in the predominantly Roman Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal. Lawmakers in France are expected to approve a bill authorizing gay marriage in the coming months.

The proposal in Britain is unusual because the sponsoring government lies on the right of the political spectrum. Supporters of marriage equality were delighted last year when Prime Minister David Cameron declared at a party conference: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

That stance, however, is far from universal within his party. On this issue, the most vociferous dissent in Parliament is not coming from the opposition Labor Party or the junior governing party, the Liberal Democrats, both of which are expected to back the bill overwhelmingly, but from Cameron’s own Conservative backbenchers.

“These proposals are a constitutional outrage and disgrace,” thundered one Tory member of Parliament, Stewart Jackson. “There is no electoral mandate for these policies.”

Other Conservatives accused Cameron and Miller of arrogance, religious intolerance and something close to sacrilege in pressing ahead with marriage equality for same-sex couples.

As many as 100 Tory lawmakers in the 650-seat House of Commons, including members of Cameron’s own Cabinet, could vote against the measure. But there are also senior party figures in Cameron’s corner, including former Prime Minister John Major.

To try to assuage the fears of some religious organizations, Miller said the bill would contain a “quadruple lock” of safeguards to guarantee that no religious groups would be compelled to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will.


For example, only a religious institution’s overall governing body would be able to decide whether the organization will “opt in” on marrying gay couples. If it decides not to, individual ministers within that group could not take it upon themselves to perform such ceremonies.

More controversially, the bill will explicitly forbid same-sex marriages in the Church of England because of its special status as the established church. Even if its leaders decide in the future to change canon law to allow same-sex marriage, Parliament will have to ratify the move.

“We need to be fair to same-sex couples. The state should not be banning them from such a great institution” as marriage, Miller told the House of Commons. “Equally we need to be fair to people of faith.”

Religious groups in favor of conducting same-sex weddings include the Quakers and some liberal Jewish synagogues.

Currently, gay and lesbian couples can enter into “civil partnerships” in Britain that carry virtually all the same rights as marriage. About 50,000 partnerships have been registered since 2005.

Under the new proposal, a couple in such an arrangement would have the opportunity to swap their civil partnership for marriage. Civil partnerships would continue to be offered but for same-sex couples only; the government has no plans to make those available for opposite-sex couples because the demand is not there, Miller said.
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:40 PM   #798
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Uruguay, too.

Uruguay's Gay Marriage Law Approved By Lower House

Uruguay, guys. Urugay.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:43 PM   #799
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 08:13 AM
I choked up scrolling through my friend's pictures from her City Hall experience. Just wonderful. They really did a nice job arranging this.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:50 PM   #800
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:13 AM
if this court vote goes down 5-4 > dark ages

think of the advantage writing the descents will have over writing the majority opinion
can any of these people not think of history and their legacy, they will be used as examples in classrooms for centuries
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:55 PM   #801
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
think of the advantage writing the descents will have over writing the majority opinion



descents into SIN, maybe.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:57 PM   #802
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:13 AM
ok, dissents

I blmae that on cell phone posting
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 12-12-2012, 04:59 PM   #803
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:13 AM
i was making a funny.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2012, 05:06 PM   #804
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:13 AM
i guess I''m a little sensitive

i'm semi-literate (razed by wolves)
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:02 AM   #805
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
bigoted ass hat.
Love this phrase. It made me chuckle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
i guess I''m a little sensitive

i'm semi-literate (razed by wolves)
I'd rather be razed by a bulldozer, myself. Quicker.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-20-2012, 12:38 PM   #806
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:13 AM
everyone and everything evolves, no matter how reptilian.



Quote:
Newt Gingrich Supports “Reality” Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality

Posted Dec 20, 2012 12:17pm EST

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he can accept the "reality" of marriage between same-sex couples as a "legal document issued by the state" — as strong a sign as any that the landscape for marriage equality has changed dramatically in the past year.

"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period," Gingrich told The Huffington Post in a story published on Thursday.

Gingrich "continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman," Sam Stein and Jon Ward report, but "suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a 'marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state' -- the latter being acceptable."

Of the change, though, Gingrich said, "I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with."

The move from the former House speaker comes a month after voters in Washington, Maryland and Maine voted in favor of marriage equality ballot measures and after voters elected a record number of out LGBT politicians to Congress, including the first out LGBT senator in Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

Regarding the time when Gingrich served as House speaker and the Defense of Marriage Act, now before the Supreme Court, was put up for debate, he said, "I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."

Several others involved in the 1996 law's passage — including Rep. Bob Barr, who sponsored the legislation, and President Clinton, who signed it into law — have since said that they now oppose DOMA and support marriage equality.

In the interview, Gingrich acknowledged his half-sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, who works at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT political group. Stein and Ward report that Gingrich said he has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa.

HRC's president, Chad Griffin called the move remarkable.

"Newt Gingrich has proven that leaders in the Republican party understand where the country is moving on marriage but he is also brave enough to say it out loud," Griffin told BuzzFeed. "It’s remarkable that Gingrich admits he didn’t see the coming power of the LGBT community and our allies back in 1996 but now understands the wave of change that’s sweeping over the nation."

As the Supreme Court considers whether DOMA's federal definition limiting "marriage" to one man and one woman is constitutional, Griffin noted of Gingrich's changed view, "His comments give room for other Republican leaders to reflect on the direction in which the country is heading and get on the right side of history."

Robert Raben, a lobbyist who was Democratic counsel for the House subcommittee that considered DOMA in 1996, had only one word in response to Gingrich's comments: "Wow."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the defense of DOMA before the Supreme Court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Newt Gingrich Supports "Reality" Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2012, 05:08 PM   #807
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 08:13 AM
"Wow" is right.

This has to be a sign of the end times.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-24-2013, 02:33 PM   #808
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Stop what you're doing and read and watch this:

Embracing our gay children: a life and death matter
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 01-26-2013, 05:06 PM   #809
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Canada's a few hours away from having its first openly gay provincial premier. Looks like Kathleen Wynne will be the new premier of Ontario.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 01-29-2013, 12:48 PM   #810
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:13 AM
salon.com

Gay marriage opponents are using the plot of “Knocked Up” in their defense of California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Seriously.

In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies … Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”

In summation: Gays require “substantial advance planning” to have kids and don’t suffer the same “threat of irresponsible procreation” as prophylactically challenged straights. Ipso facto, they don’t need equal access to a legal contract that carries close to 1,049 statutory provisions, including tax breaks, disability benefits and joint parenting rights.

This isn’t the first time the state’s “interest in the family tradition“ has been used to argue against gay marriage, just the most recent. (And maybe the only to identify the “threat” of irresponsible procreation.)

And while the high court prepares to hear the case, it remains unclear when exactly Clement will seek the annulment of 1.5 million infertile marriages in the United States. You know, the other people who don’t accidentally get pregnant.

Because undoing all those “unnecessary” marriages is going to take a lot of paperwork. He should probably get started.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com