Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[Irvine511]

Tony Perkins certainly knows what good fellatio technique with proper wrist action looks like.

[Jive Turkey]

[martha]

You guys are fucked up.

[PhilsFan]

I'm personally thrilled that there are some conservatives hanging around again. This place becomes mad boring when there aren't. It's like an echo chamber.

[deep]

CA back in gay marrige business today.

Court allows gay marriages to resume in California
Los Angeles Times | June 28, 2013 | 3:26 PM

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.

The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

[deep]

.

The illustrator called next week's cover "Moment of Joy."

"It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," . "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate."

As you can imagine, the cover already has people talking. : " 'New Yorker' Outs Bert and Ernie."

Jordan Weissmann, of The Atlantic, : "Fact error by the : Bert and Ernie could not have watched the court ruling on TV."

Of course, , Sesame Workshop says the two male Muppets who share a house and a bedroom are just friends.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation," the workshop said.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

That's fine.

If you think that all opinions demand tolerance, then I assume you also tolerate the opinions of racists, anti-semites, Islamic jihadists and so on. I don't.

First of all:

1) Racists
2) Anti-semites
3) Islamic jihadists
4) Focus on the Family

What ever happened to liberal nuance?

Second, your attitude doesn't bode well at all for a great many things.

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?

What is the virtue of doing a lot of these things (omitting the portions that are strawman arguments) for other issues of hate but not for gays?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

Who cares?

You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseases root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Serious stuff.

Originally Posted by anitram

This will remain an issue for fewer and fewer people who are inflexible and stuck in their ways and for the rest of us, life goes on just like it did before. I'm getting married in 7 weeks and I'm glad that the "new" definition of marriage is extended to all of our gay friends who will be celebrating with us, including one American couple who moved to Canada precisely because so many people in their country were hung up on dictionaries 8 years ago.

Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

Serious stuff.

Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.

You and Scalia are on the wrong side of history on this one. Carry a torch for this all you want, but the rest of the world is moving on.

As for your marriage law, are you seriously drawing a blank on how to change the language to "two consenting adults"?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

Ahahahahahaha.

Scalia's position seems to be that the people should vote on everything and the Supreme Court should do nothing ... when he's dissenting. And if you take that position, you better vote against everything, otherwise you're just a hypocrite.

[Irvine511]

Scalia's dissent was horseshit.

Everyone agrees on this. It's already been eviscerated, and not just in this case but in Lawrence v Texas as well.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.

We've won the debate. To claim there hasn't been a debate is flat out wrong.

Have you read the transcripts from the Prop 8 trial? That was a debate. An incredibly lopsided debate where Olsen/Boies obliterated their feeble opposition, one that couldn't even find a single witness to testify that gay couples marrying would create any sort of harm. Not. A. Single. Witness.

You have had your day in court. And more. And neither the GOPnnor Maggie Gallagher nor the Mormon Church could offer anything other than animus.

But continue to ignore me.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

First of all:

1) Racists
2) Anti-semites
3) Islamic jihadists
4) Focus on the Family

What ever happened to liberal nuance?

Second, your attitude doesn't bode well at all for a great many things.

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?

Oh, how awful. It seems that life for people who dont like SSM might become slightly less comfortable when SSM is legal in all 50 states.

How awful. So many terrible things could happen. Keep listing them.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's important to distinguish between an ideology being a punching bag and people being punching bags. I have a distaste for religion in general. I like Christian people in general.

I wasn't thinking of your recent tirades against religion when I made that statement. My statement covers about 7, 8, 9 years of "acceptable target" hypocrisy from the 'tolerant' Left of FYM. And it's not just Christians and it's not just regarding Christians and homosexuality.

In fact, your religion thread (and some of the reaction to it) where you had a nice go at Islam is a PERFECT illustration of what I really mean. You were picking on a target that wasn't acceptable. You should have gone after Christians. Then it would have been very popular. THIS is all I'm saying.

[Pearl]

The fact that there are many Americans who don't support SSM, despite that it will be increasingly legal in the future, is still an issue here - especially with business owners. There have already been cases where people who have beachfront property, own party halls and even wedding cake businesses, have refused same-sex couples who wanted to use their business for their weddings. This is leading, and will continue to lead to lawsuits. Obviously if you don't support SSM, well, don't have one. But if you run a wedding-oriented business, that's where the problems arise.

I'm curious as to what legally can be done about this issue. Also, can FYMers in other countries - Canada, the Netherlands, etc. - tell how this problem is resolved in their countries?

[Irvine511]

It's illegal to refuse your services to people on the basis of skin color or religion. Why should sexual orientation be any different.

That said, I'd rather not give such people my business rather than sue them to make a point.

[Badyouken]

INDY, AEON: I invite you to come and visit Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The moral fabric has not collapsed, in fact it is a complete non-issue.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Badyouken

INDY, AEON: I invite you to come and visit Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The moral fabric has not collapsed, in fact it is a complete non-issue.

And Massaschusetts, which has has SSM since 2003, remains the state with the lowest divorce rate, best schools, etc.

[anitram]

That approach won't work with INDY as I've tried it several times and he counters with stories from right-wing papers about how bigots are being prosecuted under Canada's hate speech laws now, so apparently gay marriage has resulted in us losing freedom (not that we had a lot of that to begin with, being socialists).