The Gay Thread - Page 36 - 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 05-21-2014, 10:11 AM   #526
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfit00 View Post
There are still gays in South Beach you know.

Have you ever been there?
No, I wasn't aware and no I haven't been there. Did you see this on TV or something?
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 12:15 PM   #527
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,221
Local Time: 04:49 PM
I was in South Beach once, or no that was Va Beach actually.

Guy was running around telling everyone about "the eye of the storm"

kept saying it was coming, it was coming.

I asked him what that meant, if it had anything to do with the new U2 album. He looked thoughtful for a moment, and then went on his way kicking sand in the air and muttering to himself.

Im told that was the gay pickup area of the beach. By that i mean, not where gays go to drive pickup trucks, its where they go to, well, you know what i mean. Its possible they drove trucks but thats beside the point.

Over on the other side of that is where all the Navy guys hung out, lots of seamen, if you know what i mean. The storm eventually did come and there was a voluntary evacuation of the beach, which eventually became mandatory. The Navy Seals would ignore the warnings and go swimming in the rising tides anyway. It was strange to see them handcuffed and arrested. But then again, thats kind of the point of this thread. Let people be who they are. Just let them be....free.
__________________

__________________
Mrs. Garrison is online now  
Old 05-22-2014, 08:11 PM   #528
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:49 PM
So in PA it's all over
No need for shouting and wringing of hands

If you let your kids play in the park unattended, you better put two pairs of pants on them
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 01:58 PM   #529
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:49 PM
i miss INDY.

Quote:
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Indiana's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, immediately allowing same-sex couples across the state to receive marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young did not issue a stay on his ruling. However, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Zoeller, whose office represented the state, said they "will quickly ask for a stay of today's ruling pending appeal."

Marion County Clerk Beth White said she is prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office at the City-County Building in Downtown Indianapolis.

"Chief Judge Richard Young's decision on marriage equality sets forth a clear course of action for this office to follow regarding same-sex marriage licenses. It is my responsibility to uphold court rulings that impact this office and that is what I will do," White said in a release.


Craig Bowen and Jake Miller were the first couple to get their marriage license and be married in Indianapolis.

The ruling left other county clerks trying to figure out how to respond. The Hamilton County clerk decided not to immediately issue licenses, while the clerk in Monroe County went ahead.

The case, Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., revolved around several same-sex Indiana couples who sued the state earlier this year, challenging its ban on gay marriage. One couple, Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, also asked for immediate recognition of their marriage performed in Massachusetts last year. Quasney is terminally ill.

On May 8, Young ordered Indiana to recognize the couple's marriage indefinitely, a decision the state then asked a federal appeals court to overturn.

Both sides also asked Young to rule on the broader constitutionality of the state law that says marriage is only between a man and a woman, leading to his decision today.

"The court recognized that there was significant harm to couples when they're wrongly denied the freedom to marry the one unique person they love," said Paul Castillo, the attorney for Lambda Legal who argued the Baskin v. Bogan case.

Castillo said he expected the state to appeal the decision.

Zoeller's office previously vowed to appeal if Young ruled against the state. The office affirmed that position today. In news release, the office also said it is analyzing the court's ruling and will communicate with county clerks on proper marriage license procedures they should follow in order "to avoid chaos during the appeal."

Young's decision today also resolved three other lawsuits filed earlier this year that challenged the state's ban on gay marriage. Young combined two of those lawsuits, Fujii et al. v. Pence et al., and Lee et al. v. Pence et al., with his decision in the Baskin v. Bogan case. The last lawsuit, Love et al. v. Pence, was dismissed.

In Indianapolis, Marion County Clerk White said the office will be open until at least 4:30 p.m. today to issue licenses.

"I will also conduct short, civil ceremonies on a first-come, first-serve basis for a voluntary $50 contribution to the Indiana Youth Group," White said in a news release.

Weddings begin as judge throws out Indiana's same-sex marriage ban
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-25-2014, 02:01 PM   #530
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 02:49 PM
What I don't understand is how you can make the jump from last year's alarming referendum, to this. Like, I'm not saying I'm not happy, but I'm a little confused by how one judge can make a move like that. Clearly this state (I guess I shouldn't say this, since I'm not living there, now) isn't nearly as in support of this motion as others and there will be push-back, which is, whatever, at least there's movement in a right direction.

But does my confusion make sense? I've seen arguments before that judges can't make these decisions and I've shrugged that argument off before as, well, they're judges, that's what they're put into place for, is to judge laws and whatnot. This time, though, this just seems completely out of left-field and 100% opposite from what was just happening a year ago.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 02:09 PM   #531
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
What I don't understand is how you can make the jump from last year's alarming referendum, to this. Like, I'm not saying I'm not happy, but I'm a little confused by how one judge can make a move like that. Clearly this state (I guess I shouldn't say this, since I'm not living there, now) isn't nearly as in support of this motion as others and there will be push-back, which is, whatever, at least there's movement in a right direction.

But does my confusion make sense? I've seen arguments before that judges can't make these decisions and I've shrugged that argument off before as, well, they're judges, that's what they're put into place for, is to judge laws and whatnot. This time, though, this just seems completely out of left-field and 100% opposite from what was just happening a year ago.


based on the SCOTUS ruling from last year, it's become clear that denying gay couples the right to marry is a violation of equal protection under the law. all these lawsuits were filed shortly after or have been in the works for some time -- now, there's legal precedent from SCOTUS. it doesn't matter what "the state" wants or the majority of it's citizens believe; laws must be Constitutional, and the ban on SSM, even passed by voters, is clearly not. it's been ruled unconstitutional in every single case since DOMA was struck down last year.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-25-2014, 02:15 PM   #532
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 02:49 PM
got it, thank you.

Though I thought this was a States rights issue? Or are you saying once SCOTUS rules, the state's are no longer able to individually rule on a law?

/clearlyveryuponthings
/polysciwastheonlyclassi'veeverfailed
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 03:09 PM   #533
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
got it, thank you.

Though I thought this was a States rights issue? Or are you saying once SCOTUS rules, the state's are no longer able to individually rule on a law?

/clearlyveryuponthings
/polysciwastheonlyclassi'veeverfailed


There are people better versed in the law than I, but my understanding is that states can make any laws they wish, but they must be Constitutional. If the constitutionality of the law is challenged, as was the case here, it's brought to court and judges issue a ruling.




Sent from
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-25-2014, 03:18 PM   #534
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 02:49 PM
That sounds about how I understood it. Thanks.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 03:51 PM   #535
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:49 PM
if states could make their own laws
then many states would still have poll taxes, that was where every voter paid a nominal fee, say about $1 to vote, I guess to help pay the costs of elections

or require a simple literacy test to make sure every voter had the most basic reading skills to know what they were voting on.

seems reasonable, Robert Bork hero of the conservatives during his nomination process said he did not believe those state laws were discriminatory

the problem was that the Supreme Court declared both laws unconstitutional
why? because the true intent was to suppress black votes in the South

Why are Protect Marriage Acts unconstitutional?

Because their true intent is not to protect traditional marriage.


If a state or the U S Congress passes an unconstitutional law judges can and should strike them down. If a lower judge gets it wrong the final say is always with the Supreme Court. Until a later court changes it mind.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 04:04 PM   #536
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:49 PM
more good news for common decency




Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage - ABC News

Quote:
The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they want to be wedded to someone of the same sex.

The judges added they don't want to brand as intolerant those who oppose gay marriage, but they said there is no reasonable objection to the practice.

"It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples," the judges wrote, addressing arguments that the ruling could undermine traditional marriage.
judges don't want to brand opposers as intolerant
but just people that have no reasonable argument.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 04:15 PM   #537
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,105
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Decent way of handling that, on their part, I'd say.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 04:19 PM   #538
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:49 PM
A good portion of my immediate family are against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs. I will say over the last 10 years or so they have been softening a bit. Of course I love them all and don't believe they are bigots. Over the years when we have had respectful conversations. They often times seem at a lost to respond to simple questions like, " Say we have two 70 year old librarians that have lived together for 35 years. They have never broken a law, always paid their taxes and been model citizens. Why should these two women be treated differently than any other couple? They are paying full taxation with less than full representation and equal rights? What harm would it do to let them get married and have the same protections and rights as all other law-abiding citizens? Where is the danger to you?" Is being unkind and hurtful to these women fair or even the morally right thing to do?"

I need to give them a frame of reference to consider instead of a bunch of mostly naked gay men in body paint and g-strings riding a float in a parade on Main Street.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-25-2014, 04:44 PM   #539
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:49 PM
The Gay Thread

So nearly naked men on floats one day a year do not deserve rights, but women showing their boobs in New Orleans or puking bros in Boston on St Patrick's Day do?


Sent from
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-25-2014, 05:01 PM   #540
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:49 PM
that is part of the conversation
plus the shitload of crappy hetero marriages that are all lawful

again if we are going to move people from unreasonable, irrational beliefs to rational ones, why not give them the biggest, widest door to walk through with a table full of free ice cream

to point is to get them to the table



also, your examples would not really have any weight, most people I know that oppose gay marriage would want women in NO or any place else that expose their tits and any man that wears a g-string exposing his ass in public to be arrested and charged with indecent exposure regardless of orientation.
__________________

__________________
deep 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 05:49 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