the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 23 - 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 07-08-2010, 10:44 PM   #331
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post


bad news from Hawaii - GOP Gov vetoed same sex bill


the Gov of Hawaii has only been divorced twice. for a Republican, that's an incredible accomplishment.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 11:10 PM   #332
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:01 PM
well, obviously.

Quote:
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 10:27 AM   #333
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Lowest common denominator state? What are the other ones? I guess it would be all others that have gay marriage.



Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 10:31 AM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 09:01 PM
I'm going to vote for the same sex couples. I've never voted in this before but now I will.


After a meeting with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, NBC announced that it would permit same-sex couples to participate in the “Modern Love’ wedding contest on Today and extended the deadline for the contest until Monday, July 12. The news was first reported by TVNewser.

Here’s the statement from Today:

Over the past few days TODAY has received a considerable response regarding our wedding contest application. The rules stated that eligible couples must be able to be legally married in New York, where we will host the wedding, therefore excluding same-sex couple applicants. Our intent was not to be discriminatory or exclusive. In 2005 when the wedding took place outside of New York, the application process was open to same-sex couples. We have listened to every voicemail and read every email. We take this feedback seriously, and we will change our application process. TODAY is a longtime supporter of the LGBT community, and GLAAD considers us an ally. We are committed to keeping those relationships strong and positive. We have opened up the application process to same-sex couples, and will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12. Moving forward, we ensure that our future wedding contests will be inclusive of all couples.

The change came after a meeting between GLAAD and Today was held to deal with the disagreement. Earlier this week, GLAAD announced an action alert about the contest after learning about the exclusion from the blog Good as You. Today had argued that it couldn’t include same-sex couples because same-sex marriage is not permitted under New York law, where the Rockefeller Center wedding is set to take place.

GLAAD told its followers that it was pleased with the decision. In a note from GLAAD head Jarrett Barrios, the organization said:

We’re thrilled that Today Show’s ‘Modern Wedding Contest’ now recognizes what most fair-minded Americans have already concluded – a wedding celebrates love and commitment, whether the spouses are straight or gay. NBC heard the thousands of viewers who contacted them and they have moved to make their contest a truly modern wedding where any couple can share their story. NBC is living up to its own high standard of fairness and for this, we applaud them
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 10:57 AM   #335
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I'm going to make a 2 out of 3 straight marriages end in divorce bus. I'll paint pictures of Mel Gibson and Tiger Woods on it.


^
Rush Limbaugh
Newt Gingrich
John McCain
Dick Armey
Bob Barr
etc., etc., etc.



I just learned of this organization doing good things:
Project 515 -- Welcome to Project 515

Equality is slowing gaining in MN. 515 laws in MN still discriminate against families and couples.
__________________
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 02:00 PM   #336
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:01 PM
seems like this Mass ruling is going to get very complex.

so, to de-complexify, i'll just let my girlfriend Wonkette explain:



Quote:
Masshole Judge Overturns DOMA, Uses Teabaggers’ Favorite Amendment For Gayness

We're stone cold getting Social Security benefits now, breeders!Your right-wing types often go on and on and on about “keeping the gummint out of my hair” and “state rights,” and take as their proof text the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which basically says that the Feds can’t do anything but fight wars and mint gold coins and maybe build interstate highways, and the states should be in charge of everything else. And if you’ve had to listen to all this, you’ve probably had the urge to say “So why should the gummint be all up in some dude’s business if he wants to marry another dude?” but you don’t because you promised your mom that you wouldn’t start any fights at Thanksgiving this year. Well, Joseph L. Tauro just basically said the exact thing that you wanted to shout over turkey and stuffing, except he’s a federal judge who was appointed by gay communist Richard Nixon 38 years ago, and he said it in a court decision declaring parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, so it’s really a lot more meaningful than your holiday-ruining diatribe.

Tauro’s decision (actually two decisions on two separate but related lawsuits) did not declare that Real American states had to recognize ungodly sodomarriages contracted in the gay states, which, depressing though that might be, at least avoids a probable nuclear-level freakout that would get boring heterosexuality enshrined in the Constitution, forever. But! He did rule that the federal government could not discriminate between legally contracted straight and gay marriages, because, according to the Teabaggers precious, precious Tenth Amendment, only state governments get to decide what a legitimate marriage is. So same-sex marrieds in the states that condone their same-sex-marriedness can file joint tax returns, get spousal Social Security and Medicare benefits, and do all the other hot fucking-and-sucking-related perversions on the “gay agenda.”

Did this elderly judge specifically tailor his decision to irritate conservatives? Probably, according to a Yale Law professor!

Quote:
Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’”
Here is a fun side note to this: One of the lawsuits was actually filed by the state of Massachusetts, which argued that DOMA essentially forced the state to discriminate against its own citizens in handing out all the federal largesse that passes through the state government. The suit was brought by the state’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley, who you probably vaguely remember as the woman who somehow lost a Massachusetts Senate election to a frequently naked Republican who drives a pickup truck. Scott Brown, of course, is so terrified of gay marriage that he’ll do anything to stop it, even berating children with obscenities, so this may be some small measure of revenge on her part.

The Obama Administration, which is defending the law in court, will appeal the decision, obviously, even though they’re officially against it, because they are lame. So enjoy the prospect of having simplified tax paperwork while it lasts, gays who live in five states and/or the District of Columbia! Once it gets to the Supreme Court, it will inevitably be overturned in a decision that will mostly consist of Scalia and Roberts coughing and saying “faggot” under their breath. [NYT]

Read more at Wonkette: Wonkette : Masshole Judge Overturns DOMA, Uses Teabaggers’ Favorite Amendment For Gayness
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 07:36 PM   #337
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Oh I see.

It's a states rights, Tenth Amendment issue except... EXCEPT... in the 30 states that have democratically voted not to recognize same-sex marriage. Then... THEN... same-sex marriage is a RIGHT protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States FEDERAL Constitution.

And while we're being all smartyass about cramming "states rights' down the throats of "teabaggers." Part of DOMA reinforces the states right not to recognize same-sex marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Is it the judgement of this court and the opinion of same-sex proponents that states have the right only to recognize same-sex marriage, not to forbid it?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-10-2010, 10:46 AM   #338
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Oh I see.

It's a states rights, Tenth Amendment issue except... EXCEPT... in the 30 states that have democratically voted not to recognize same-sex marriage. Then... THEN... same-sex marriage is a RIGHT protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States FEDERAL Constitution.

And while we're being all smartyass about cramming "states rights' down the throats of "teabaggers." Part of DOMA reinforces the states right not to recognize same-sex marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Is it the judgement of this court and the opinion of same-sex proponents that states have the right only to recognize same-sex marriage, not to forbid it?

slow down, take a breath, read.

the decision is saying that the citizens of Massachusetts are having their rights violated by the federal government, and that's about it. so if the citizens of Indiana want to express their anger and hatred for gay people by making sure those faggots know their place by passing laws about marriage, they're free to do so.

you really should be very happy about all this, INDY. because what it does is make Arizona 1170 much, much more complicated.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-15-2010, 12:13 PM   #339
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 10:01 PM
Argentina may not have played up to their potential in the recent World Cup, but at least they now have equal rights.

Viva!!

Quote:
Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote


Following a long and tense debate among lawmakers, Argentina has joined Canada as one of a select few nations to legalize marriages between same-sex couples.

The ruling early Thursday makes Argentina the first country in Latin America to grant gays and lesbians all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings heterosexual couples.

Following more than 14 hours of heated debate during which thousands of Argentines protested outside the Congress, the vote in the upper house came down to 33-27 for the proposal, with three abstentions.


Since the lower house already approved the bill in May and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter of gay marriage on human rights grounds, it's expected she'll sign the bill into law after her return from a state visit to China.


Opinion polls show a majority of Argentines support gay marriage, and many senators publicly states that they supported it, too.


"I believe this has advanced equal rights," Sen. Eugenio Artaza told reporters after the debate.


Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president, disagreed.
"Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species," he insisted.

The proposed law broadly declares that "marriage provides for the same requisites and effects independent of whether the contracting parties are of the same or different sex."


The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress.


Opponents, from children to elderly nuns, braved near-freezing temperatures to protest outside the Congress since Tuesday, snarling traffic in Buenos Aires.


The Senate's decision is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have increasingly found Buenos Aires to be more accepting than many other places in the region.


Same-sex civil unions -- not marriages -- had already been legal in Buenos Aires, as well as Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil.


Mexico City has legalized gay marriage. And Colombia's constitutional court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.


With Thursday's decision, married gay couples can now adopt children and inherit wealth, which they couldn't do under same-sex unions.


Argentina is the first country in South America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.


Nine gay couples have already married in Argentina after persuading judges that Argentina's constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, but some of these marriages were later declared invalid.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-15-2010, 01:40 PM   #340
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Argentina may not have played up to their potential in the recent World Cup, but at least they now have equal rights.

Viva!!
Love it. Love their president, too.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 02:50 PM   #341
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:01 PM
we have a conservative (GOP) giving us his enlightened views

Quote:
State Sen. Roy Ashburn disavows his gay-rights record

July 20, 2010 | 4:25 pm

State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), who earlier this year acknowledged that he is gay, has disavowed his record of voting against gay rights in the Legislature.

"I am sincerely sorry for the votes I cast and the actions I took that harmed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," he writes in an online opinion piece.

He argues in the essay on gaypolitics.com that it is “time for fair-minded Republicans to speak up” for such rights.

“I am no longer willing, nor able, to remain silent in the face of unequal and hurtful treatment of my community,” he wrote.

Ashburn, 56, is serving his final year in the Senate. He apologized for “regrettably and selfishly” voting against gay rights during his tenure as a lawmaker. “All this was done because I was afraid -- terrified, really -- that somehow I would be revealed as gay,” he wrote.

Ashburn acknowledged that, as a gay Republican, “I am somewhat of a novelty in politics,” but says he now fully embraces that bully pulpit to battle for gay rights.

“How can it possibly be that there is a partisan political divide over equal rights in America?”
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 02:52 PM   #342
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 06:01 PM
I'm so sick of people like him. He thinks that if he says he's sorry, and other people shouldn't do it, even though he did for years, that's it's all ok now? Bullshit.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 03:12 PM   #343
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:01 PM
you don't think encouraging people to do the right thing is worth while ?


What is your opinion of Sen Robert Byrd ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 03:23 PM   #344
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Roy Ashburn has my sympathies. life in the closet is a unique kind of hell that makes people do crazy things. we'd be nowhere if we couldn't forgive, and so i'd rather do that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 03:59 PM   #345
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I'm so sick of people like him. He thinks that if he says he's sorry, and other people shouldn't do it, even though he did for years, that's it's all ok now? Bullshit.
Ah yes, so much better to keep on doing the wrong thing.

I don't see how your attitude toward him and other still closeted people is any better than that of the conservatives you hate so much. Both attitudes have to make it really difficult to ever come out. I suppose you think he should have come out in his teens or twenties but reality doesn't work that way. His actions now don't make it all ok, but it is a positive step, and positive steps, no matter how small, should be encouraged and appreciated.

Besides, having yet another politician who voted for virulently homophobic legislation come out (or be outed) may help in getting others to at least think twice before backing such legislation in the future lest they be thought of as gay.
__________________

__________________
indra 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 02:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 03:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-14-2008 12:07 AM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.


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